Pahu;1456431 wrote: 1. Evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as brilliant autumn foliage ...
Death and decay are fundamental to evolution. Perhaps you are under the impression that autumn foliage is a work of art with no natural function?
Science Disproves Evolution
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1456431 wrote: 1. Evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as brilliant autumn foliage ...
Evolution is an observed phenomenon. It hardly attempts to explain anything.
However, science can explain such things very well, including evolution.
Evolution is an observed phenomenon. It hardly attempts to explain anything.
However, science can explain such things very well, including evolution.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
If the statements weren't intended as a serious claims the would make an excellent stand up comedy routine script.
He's definitely away with the fairies - something else you can't disprove the existence of. Come to that, he probably DOES insist that they exist at the bottom of his garden for those very reasons.
He's definitely away with the fairies - something else you can't disprove the existence of. Come to that, he probably DOES insist that they exist at the bottom of his garden for those very reasons.
Science Disproves Evolution
My personal opinion is that pahu is an A.I. NetBot.
1. He never posts to any thread other than his own.
2. He will not discuss any topic other than his own, even in this thread. ( probably because the parser is designed to only recognize statements concerning evolution.)
3. He has never changed his avatar...not even seasonally. Nor has he changed any other user preferences.
4. Most importantly, he has NEVER shown any emotion: passion, anger, humor, or even impatience.
Watch, I'll demonstrate. Pahu, how is your family doing?
Most likely he's either a NSA experimental A.I. or a Koch brothers propaganda tool.
1. He never posts to any thread other than his own.
2. He will not discuss any topic other than his own, even in this thread. ( probably because the parser is designed to only recognize statements concerning evolution.)
3. He has never changed his avatar...not even seasonally. Nor has he changed any other user preferences.
4. Most importantly, he has NEVER shown any emotion: passion, anger, humor, or even impatience.
Watch, I'll demonstrate. Pahu, how is your family doing?
Most likely he's either a NSA experimental A.I. or a Koch brothers propaganda tool.
Science Disproves Evolution
Let's really push some buttons. Pahu, why do you even care about evolution? Do you think that evolution implies the absence of God? Why couldn't evolution be a part of God's design? Or do you set limits on God? Do you believe that life exists on other worlds? If so, do you believe that life on those myriad of worlds is identical to Earth's life?
Let's face it. You pretend to be "scientific" and "logical." But, unless you can answer those questions objectively, you are the worst kind of religious zealot. The kind that blindly manufactures pseudo-"facts" to fit their own ignorant views.
Forgive me for being blunt, but my job in society is to fight willful ignorance.
Answer my questions or I'll ask the mods to ban you.
Let's face it. You pretend to be "scientific" and "logical." But, unless you can answer those questions objectively, you are the worst kind of religious zealot. The kind that blindly manufactures pseudo-"facts" to fit their own ignorant views.
Forgive me for being blunt, but my job in society is to fight willful ignorance.
Answer my questions or I'll ask the mods to ban you.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1456725 wrote:
He's definitely away with the fairies - something else you can't disprove the existence of. Come to that, he probably DOES insist that they exist at the bottom of his garden for those very reasons.
That isn't entirely fair. He calls them "angels".
He's definitely away with the fairies - something else you can't disprove the existence of. Come to that, he probably DOES insist that they exist at the bottom of his garden for those very reasons.
That isn't entirely fair. He calls them "angels".
Science Disproves Evolution
Might I remind all of Forum rule 1.1 No "Flaming": Please do not post any messages that harrass [sic], insult, belittle, threaten or flame another member or guest.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1456739 wrote: Might I remind all of Forum rule 1.1 No "Flaming": Please do not post any messages that harrass [sic], insult, belittle, threaten or flame another member or guest.
You mean, "He calls them "angels"?
You mean, "He calls them "angels"?
Science Disproves Evolution
I prefer the Daniken theory of the origin of Man, with Biblical connections....
A planet is dying.
They send out colonists in order to continue the species from a doomed world.
Hundreds of colonists land and, just as the early American Settlers colonise this New World - a harsh, but plentiful environment.
Life is hard & basic survival was a struggle, but in order to pass on the tale of how they came to be, rather than document every single person who came from the other world they just take 2 - Adam & Eve.
As children, they grow up happily in a typical state of innocent, ignorant childish bliss (Paradise / Garden of Eden).
Then they start to enter puberty & things start to happen to their bodies and, as is the way with early teenagers once they start to ask questions (taking the fruit of the tree of knowledge), they become embarassed about these changes to their bodies & try to cover themselves with fig leaves.
Then the inevitable happens & Nature takes its course & along come the boys. Once they grow up, brothers being as they are constantly fighting. Cain gets peed off about being a baby-sitter & ends up killing Abel.
However, as Adam & Eve were only 2 of the mass of alien settlers, although they were the only ones catalogued, there were others, which would explain Cain's ability to find a wife.
And what if the name of this settling species, or the world from which they originated just happened to be called 'God'?
A fanciful tale. Of course. But as I see it, that interpretation is far more plausible that some invisible spiritual being, supposedly of human form suddenly appearing from nowhere in the middle of space. The age old question of who created God is always met with the answer that he made himself & has always been there, ever since the before beginning of time. I have never been able to understand how, in this day & age, anyone can still continue to believe such fantasy.
Now Father Christmas - That's a totally different story....
A planet is dying.
They send out colonists in order to continue the species from a doomed world.
Hundreds of colonists land and, just as the early American Settlers colonise this New World - a harsh, but plentiful environment.
Life is hard & basic survival was a struggle, but in order to pass on the tale of how they came to be, rather than document every single person who came from the other world they just take 2 - Adam & Eve.
As children, they grow up happily in a typical state of innocent, ignorant childish bliss (Paradise / Garden of Eden).
Then they start to enter puberty & things start to happen to their bodies and, as is the way with early teenagers once they start to ask questions (taking the fruit of the tree of knowledge), they become embarassed about these changes to their bodies & try to cover themselves with fig leaves.
Then the inevitable happens & Nature takes its course & along come the boys. Once they grow up, brothers being as they are constantly fighting. Cain gets peed off about being a baby-sitter & ends up killing Abel.
However, as Adam & Eve were only 2 of the mass of alien settlers, although they were the only ones catalogued, there were others, which would explain Cain's ability to find a wife.
And what if the name of this settling species, or the world from which they originated just happened to be called 'God'?
A fanciful tale. Of course. But as I see it, that interpretation is far more plausible that some invisible spiritual being, supposedly of human form suddenly appearing from nowhere in the middle of space. The age old question of who created God is always met with the answer that he made himself & has always been there, ever since the before beginning of time. I have never been able to understand how, in this day & age, anyone can still continue to believe such fantasy.
Now Father Christmas - That's a totally different story....
Science Disproves Evolution
High Threshold;1456741 wrote: You mean, "He calls them "angels"?
No, I meant that to be a "gentle reminder" in light of the tack the conversation is beginning to take.
No, I meant that to be a "gentle reminder" in light of the tack the conversation is beginning to take.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
To the creationists, everything was created by God 6,500 - 7,000 years ago.
Science is very clear and demonstrable about the age of the universe. The speed of light is proven to be c 186,000 mps . So stellar objects 7,000 light years away would be the furthest observable objects, right ??
Thats clearly and again demonstrably, incorrect.
You've just dismissed 99% of the universe as not being there.
So should I believe in the handful of confused, YECs some of which happen to be scientists or to the 98% of scientists that believe in evolution ?
Science is very clear and demonstrable about the age of the universe. The speed of light is proven to be c 186,000 mps . So stellar objects 7,000 light years away would be the furthest observable objects, right ??
Thats clearly and again demonstrably, incorrect.
You've just dismissed 99% of the universe as not being there.
So should I believe in the handful of confused, YECs some of which happen to be scientists or to the 98% of scientists that believe in evolution ?
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Well, I offer that the idea of believing in evolution is like believing in Photosynthesis.
These are both observed phenomena.
They just happen.
They are not "theories". they are not philosophies.
What the YEC folks seem to have a problem with is the idea that something in the Bible might be fundamentally wrong. They have put their faith in this collection of fairy tales instead of the God of the Universe. And now all of the evidence suggests that their precious book may not be the infallible shield to protect them from reality that they once hoped it was.
So they clap their hands over their ears and sing loudly, in hopes of drowning all of their doubts under a barrage of self-serving claptrap, while the world sails by unmoved by their personal panic.
God Did NOT write the book. Man wrote it. And Man is fallible. The precious book proves nothing if not that singular fact.
So let them deny reality all they want. in the end it won't really matter. When they meet their God, he will welcome them right along side all of those heathen scientists and other sinners they believed were so wrong. They are in for such a surprise.
Or not. We shall see.
These are both observed phenomena.
They just happen.
They are not "theories". they are not philosophies.
What the YEC folks seem to have a problem with is the idea that something in the Bible might be fundamentally wrong. They have put their faith in this collection of fairy tales instead of the God of the Universe. And now all of the evidence suggests that their precious book may not be the infallible shield to protect them from reality that they once hoped it was.
So they clap their hands over their ears and sing loudly, in hopes of drowning all of their doubts under a barrage of self-serving claptrap, while the world sails by unmoved by their personal panic.
God Did NOT write the book. Man wrote it. And Man is fallible. The precious book proves nothing if not that singular fact.
So let them deny reality all they want. in the end it won't really matter. When they meet their God, he will welcome them right along side all of those heathen scientists and other sinners they believed were so wrong. They are in for such a surprise.
Or not. We shall see.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1456770 wrote: So let them deny reality all they want. ..... When they meet their God, he will welcome them right along side all of those heathen scientists and other sinners they believed were so wrong. They are in for such a surprise.
May I quote you?
May I quote you?
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1456739 wrote: Might I remind all of Forum rule 1.1 No "Flaming": Please do not post any messages that harrass [sic], insult, belittle, threaten or flame another member or guest.
That's my point. I don't think he is a "guest." If he is real, all he has to do is to behave like a human being and do something human like changing his avatar or posting in another thread. Even a religious one, I'm not picky.
Oh the devil with this. I'm unsubscribing from this thread.
That's my point. I don't think he is a "guest." If he is real, all he has to do is to behave like a human being and do something human like changing his avatar or posting in another thread. Even a religious one, I'm not picky.
Oh the devil with this. I'm unsubscribing from this thread.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1456697 wrote: I find it funny that every single one one of the points he makes actually goes to SUPPORT the principle of evolution, once you remove the falsehoods that have been added, denying the existence of evidence to prove the case for evolution. The fact is that the physical evidence is overwhelming & well documented by geology, history & observation. Yet there is absolutely NO evidence against it.
I have provided much evidence against evolution. Where is the evidence for it?
NO evidence for a God or anything like it.
The facts of science prove the existence of God:
Science Proves God
When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:
1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Something does not come from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.
Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.
The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.
“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes. [From In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.
Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.
The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.
If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.
[From Reincarnation in the Bible? ]Reincarnation in the Bible? by Dan Carlton | 9781491811009 | Paperback | Barnes & Noble
As for the bit about limestone & fossiilsed sea creatures being found on the tops of mountains. I absolutely agree. You really should look up something about how mountains are formed. They are pushed upward over eons from the ground by the geological fault lines - much like if you push the ends of a piece of paper towards each other - or do you also deny the existence of Continental Shift? Once upon a time, the whole earth was probably covered by water - only not as deep as it is now. The masses of rock have simply been forced above the water level firstly to form little islands, where you'd get all sorts of creatures in the rock pools.
If the earth were level it would be covered with over a mile of water. Before the Flood the earth was nearly level. After the Flood the mountains we see today were formed in a matter of weeks.
I have provided much evidence against evolution. Where is the evidence for it?
NO evidence for a God or anything like it.
The facts of science prove the existence of God:
Science Proves God
When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:
1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Something does not come from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.
Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.
The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.
“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes. [From In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.
Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.
The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.
If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell.
[From Reincarnation in the Bible? ]Reincarnation in the Bible? by Dan Carlton | 9781491811009 | Paperback | Barnes & Noble
As for the bit about limestone & fossiilsed sea creatures being found on the tops of mountains. I absolutely agree. You really should look up something about how mountains are formed. They are pushed upward over eons from the ground by the geological fault lines - much like if you push the ends of a piece of paper towards each other - or do you also deny the existence of Continental Shift? Once upon a time, the whole earth was probably covered by water - only not as deep as it is now. The masses of rock have simply been forced above the water level firstly to form little islands, where you'd get all sorts of creatures in the rock pools.
If the earth were level it would be covered with over a mile of water. Before the Flood the earth was nearly level. After the Flood the mountains we see today were formed in a matter of weeks.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1456697 wrote: As the rock pools began to dry up as the islands got bigger, only those that could adapt to their new environment survived to breed & pass on their adaptations to the following generations. Evolution in action. Anything that doesn't change to suit a changing environment will die off. The are many asexual species that continue to multiply with only one sex / clones of themselves, but they tend to be in very stable environments.
Plants moved on to evolve from the earliest ferns to produce seeds - originally self pollenated by the wind - later aided by the evolution of insects, so the introduction of different genders was never something that had to be there from the start, as claimed - the physical EVIDENCE proves otherwise.
Amphibians - the evolutionary stage between water & land.
Incidentally, crocodiles are reckoned to be a surviving dinosaur species and, as with many other reptiles, their eggs change sex according to temperature.
Evidence free speculation. Here are the facts:
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION: 1
Top-flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alongside gorgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronouncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reserved only for professional books and journals.
Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.
Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.
An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].
"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.
"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.
"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.
" `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].
"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.
"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].
"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "—*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).
"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm 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].
"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.
"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].
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].
"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.
" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."—*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.
"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].
[continue]
Plants moved on to evolve from the earliest ferns to produce seeds - originally self pollenated by the wind - later aided by the evolution of insects, so the introduction of different genders was never something that had to be there from the start, as claimed - the physical EVIDENCE proves otherwise.
Amphibians - the evolutionary stage between water & land.
Incidentally, crocodiles are reckoned to be a surviving dinosaur species and, as with many other reptiles, their eggs change sex according to temperature.
Evidence free speculation. Here are the facts:
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION: 1
Top-flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alongside gorgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronouncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reserved only for professional books and journals.
Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove evolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.
Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionists cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.
An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."—*Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].
"It is almost invariably assumed that animals with bodies composed of a single cell represent the primitive animals from which all others derived. They are commonly supposed to have preceded all other animal types in their appearance. There is not the slightest basis for this assumption."—*Austin Clark, The New Evolution (1930), pp. 235-236.
"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.
"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."—*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All: The Secret of Life," New York Times.
" `The theory of evolution is totally inadequate to explain the origin and manifestation of the inorganic world.' "—Sir John Ambrose Fleming, F.R.S., quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 91 [discoverer of the thermionic valve].
"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.
"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial . . the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific integrity."—*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin's, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].
"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' "—*David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).
"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm 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].
"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.
"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].
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."—*Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].
"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.
" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days . . in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being."—*Thomas Huxley, quoted in *Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. II (1903), p. 429.
"The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge."—*Albert Fleishmann, Zoologist.
"I argue that the `theory of evolution' does not take predictions, so far as ecology is concerned, but is instead a logical formula which can be used only to classify empiricisms and to show the relationships which such a classification implies . . these theories are actually tautologies and, as such, cannot make empirically testable predictions. They are not scientific theories at all."—*R.H. Peters, "Tautology in Evolution and Ecology," American Naturalist (1976), Vol. 110, No. 1, p. 1 [emphasis his].
[continue]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Actually, Pahu, you have provided a lot of opinions, and very little evidence.
And little, if any science.
And repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it more true.
And little, if any science.
And repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it more true.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT EVOLUTION: 1
[continued]
"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.
"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.
"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.
"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.
"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.
"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.
"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."—*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].
"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.
"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.
"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."—*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].
"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).
"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).
Scientists Speak About Evolution
[continued]
"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.
"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey, (1957), p. 199.
"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.
"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.
"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.
"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.
"It is therefore of immediate concern to both biologists and layman that Darwinism is under attack. The theory of life that undermined nineteenth-century religion has virtually become a religion itself and, in its turn, is being threatened by fresh ideas. The attacks are certainly not limited to those of the creationists and religious fundamentalists who deny Darwinism for political and moral reason. The main thrust of the criticism comes from within science itself. The doubts about Darwinism represent a political revolt from within rather than a siege from without."—*B. Leith, The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism (1982), p. 11.
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism seem to me to have held back the progress of science."—Colin Patterson, The Listener [senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London].
"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.
"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.
"The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."—*D.B. Gower, "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4 [biochemist].
"From the almost total absence of fossil evidence relative to the origin of the phyla, it follows that any explanation of the mechanism in the creative evolution of the fundamental structural plans is heavily burdened with hypothesis. This should appear as an epigraph to every book on evolution. The lack of direct evidence leads to the formulation of pure conjecture as to the genesis of the phyla; we do not even have a basis to determine the extent to which these opinions are correct."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 31.
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, `Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.' "—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).
"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).
Scientists Speak About Evolution
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Saint could be right.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1456704 wrote: Evolution is an observed phenomenon. It hardly attempts to explain anything.
However, science can explain such things very well, including evolution.
Where has evolution been observed?
However, science can explain such things very well, including evolution.
Where has evolution been observed?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Saint_;1456731 wrote: Let's really push some buttons. Pahu, why do you even care about evolution?
Because the false teaching of evolution results in disaster.
Do you think that evolution implies the absence of God? Why couldn't evolution be a part of God's design? Or do you set limits on God?
Evolution denies God. The reason evolution could not be part of God's design is evolution teaches the cause of everything is natural and mindless. God teaches the cause of everything is intelligent design, which He revealed in His Bible. The two teachings are incompatible.
Do you believe that life exists on other worlds? If so, do you believe that life on those myriad of worlds is identical to Earth's life?
God reveals this is the only world where physical life exists. The other worlds may contain spiritual life, but that is only speculation.
Let's face it. You pretend to be "scientific" and "logical." But, unless you can answer those questions objectively, you are the worst kind of religious zealot. The kind that blindly manufactures pseudo-"facts" to fit their own ignorant views.
Forgive me for being blunt, but my job in society is to fight willful ignorance.
Answer my questions or I'll ask the mods to ban you.
All of my posts contain science and logic. Can you think of any that don't?
I am also interested in replacing ignorance with truth, which is why I post. Belief in evolution/atheism is willful ignorance since the facts prove otherwise.
Because the false teaching of evolution results in disaster.
Do you think that evolution implies the absence of God? Why couldn't evolution be a part of God's design? Or do you set limits on God?
Evolution denies God. The reason evolution could not be part of God's design is evolution teaches the cause of everything is natural and mindless. God teaches the cause of everything is intelligent design, which He revealed in His Bible. The two teachings are incompatible.
Do you believe that life exists on other worlds? If so, do you believe that life on those myriad of worlds is identical to Earth's life?
God reveals this is the only world where physical life exists. The other worlds may contain spiritual life, but that is only speculation.
Let's face it. You pretend to be "scientific" and "logical." But, unless you can answer those questions objectively, you are the worst kind of religious zealot. The kind that blindly manufactures pseudo-"facts" to fit their own ignorant views.
Forgive me for being blunt, but my job in society is to fight willful ignorance.
Answer my questions or I'll ask the mods to ban you.
All of my posts contain science and logic. Can you think of any that don't?
I am also interested in replacing ignorance with truth, which is why I post. Belief in evolution/atheism is willful ignorance since the facts prove otherwise.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1456743 wrote:
The age old question of who created God is always met with the answer that he made himself & has always been there, ever since the before beginning of time. I have never been able to understand how, in this day & age, anyone can still continue to believe such fantasy.
God did not make Himself. That would be impossible, even for God. He reveals in His Bible that He has always existed. How is that possible? There are many things we have no answer for. For example:
Join me on an imaginary trip into the past—way back into the past. Let’s go all the way back to the very beginning of the universe. There are some who believe the universe had no beginning; that it has always existed. I think most scientists disagree with such a belief. One reason they give is the existence of radioactivity. Radioactive materials still exist and are still in the process of breaking down into stable materials. The stars are a good example of this process. There are still stars burning with what scientists call thermonuclear fusion, including our sun. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. If the universe has always existed, everything would be in equilibrium. The whole universe would be stable. There would be no movement and no difference in temperature. Since that is not the state of the universe, it must have had a beginning. So imagine we are standing at the very beginning of the universe. Since it did have a beginning, then there must have been a time before the beginning. Now let’s take another step into the past. Let’s go back before the beginning. What will we be likely to find here? Well we should expect to find nothing shouldn’t we? Absolutely nothing! Not even a single atom. Not even a single electron. Nothing! In every direction from where we are standing there is nothing but totally empty space.
But what is space? Where did it come from? Where does it begin? Where does it end? But how is this possible? How can it extend in all directions from our imaginary position without ending? It cannot end, can it? What would lie on the other side of the end? On the other hand, how can it not end? These seem to be the only two possibilities and yet neither of them is possible, are they? Using logic and experience, we have arrived at a point that we are unable to understand or explain.
As if that were not enough of a problem, consider the fact that out of this absolute nothingness the universe appears. But how is that possible? All of our experience and logic tells us something cannot come from nothing by any natural source. And yet there it is. Sane people cannot deny that the universe does exist, can they? Using our experience and logic, we would have to conclude that the existence of the universe is impossible, and yet it does exist.
Have you ever thought about these things? Would you agree with me that we cannot answer these questions using observation, experience, experimentation, and logic? These questions seem to be beyond our ability to answer. If there is an answer, I’ve never heard one that is based on observation, experience, experimentation, facts and logic. We will have to admit that there are some facts that we simply do not have the ability to understand or explain.
Reincarnation in the Bible? by Dan Carlton | 9781491811009 | Paperback | Barnes & Noble
The age old question of who created God is always met with the answer that he made himself & has always been there, ever since the before beginning of time. I have never been able to understand how, in this day & age, anyone can still continue to believe such fantasy.
God did not make Himself. That would be impossible, even for God. He reveals in His Bible that He has always existed. How is that possible? There are many things we have no answer for. For example:
Join me on an imaginary trip into the past—way back into the past. Let’s go all the way back to the very beginning of the universe. There are some who believe the universe had no beginning; that it has always existed. I think most scientists disagree with such a belief. One reason they give is the existence of radioactivity. Radioactive materials still exist and are still in the process of breaking down into stable materials. The stars are a good example of this process. There are still stars burning with what scientists call thermonuclear fusion, including our sun. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. If the universe has always existed, everything would be in equilibrium. The whole universe would be stable. There would be no movement and no difference in temperature. Since that is not the state of the universe, it must have had a beginning. So imagine we are standing at the very beginning of the universe. Since it did have a beginning, then there must have been a time before the beginning. Now let’s take another step into the past. Let’s go back before the beginning. What will we be likely to find here? Well we should expect to find nothing shouldn’t we? Absolutely nothing! Not even a single atom. Not even a single electron. Nothing! In every direction from where we are standing there is nothing but totally empty space.
But what is space? Where did it come from? Where does it begin? Where does it end? But how is this possible? How can it extend in all directions from our imaginary position without ending? It cannot end, can it? What would lie on the other side of the end? On the other hand, how can it not end? These seem to be the only two possibilities and yet neither of them is possible, are they? Using logic and experience, we have arrived at a point that we are unable to understand or explain.
As if that were not enough of a problem, consider the fact that out of this absolute nothingness the universe appears. But how is that possible? All of our experience and logic tells us something cannot come from nothing by any natural source. And yet there it is. Sane people cannot deny that the universe does exist, can they? Using our experience and logic, we would have to conclude that the existence of the universe is impossible, and yet it does exist.
Have you ever thought about these things? Would you agree with me that we cannot answer these questions using observation, experience, experimentation, and logic? These questions seem to be beyond our ability to answer. If there is an answer, I’ve never heard one that is based on observation, experience, experimentation, facts and logic. We will have to admit that there are some facts that we simply do not have the ability to understand or explain.
Reincarnation in the Bible? by Dan Carlton | 9781491811009 | Paperback | Barnes & Noble
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Snowfire;1456769 wrote: To the creationists, everything was created by God 6,500 - 7,000 years ago.
Science is very clear and demonstrable about the age of the universe. The speed of light is proven to be c 186,000 mps . So stellar objects 7,000 light years away would be the furthest observable objects, right ??
Thats clearly and again demonstrably, incorrect.
You've just dismissed 99% of the universe as not being there.
So should I believe in the handful of confused, YECs some of which happen to be scientists or to the 98% of scientists that believe in evolution ?
Stretching the universe at creation would explain the problem. Was space, along with light emitted by stars, rapidly stretched out soon after creation began? If so, energy would have been added to the universe and starlight during that stretching. The scientific evidence clearly favors this stretching explanation over the big bang theory, which also claims that space expanded rapidly. Yet, the big bang theory says all this expansion energy, plus all the matter in the universe, was, at the beginning of time, inside a volume much smaller than a pinhead.
At least eleven times, the Bible states that God “stretched out or “stretches out the heavens. For emphasis, important ideas are often repeated in the Bible. While we may have difficulty visualizing this stretching, we can be confident of its significance.
The Hebrew word for stretched is natah. It does not mean an explosion, a flinging out, or the type of stretching that encounters increasing resistance, as with a spring. Natah is more like the effortless reaching out of one’s hand.
Energy flowed into the universe as stretching progressed. According to the big bang theory, stars, galaxies, and black holes began forming after 500,000,000 years. According to the stretching explanation, these bodies were formed (or began) near the beginning of time—early in the creation week. Because matter and starlight occupy space, they were also stretched.
There is a great deal of evidence supporting the stretching idea. You can find it here:
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Evidence
Science is very clear and demonstrable about the age of the universe. The speed of light is proven to be c 186,000 mps . So stellar objects 7,000 light years away would be the furthest observable objects, right ??
Thats clearly and again demonstrably, incorrect.
You've just dismissed 99% of the universe as not being there.
So should I believe in the handful of confused, YECs some of which happen to be scientists or to the 98% of scientists that believe in evolution ?
Stretching the universe at creation would explain the problem. Was space, along with light emitted by stars, rapidly stretched out soon after creation began? If so, energy would have been added to the universe and starlight during that stretching. The scientific evidence clearly favors this stretching explanation over the big bang theory, which also claims that space expanded rapidly. Yet, the big bang theory says all this expansion energy, plus all the matter in the universe, was, at the beginning of time, inside a volume much smaller than a pinhead.
At least eleven times, the Bible states that God “stretched out or “stretches out the heavens. For emphasis, important ideas are often repeated in the Bible. While we may have difficulty visualizing this stretching, we can be confident of its significance.
The Hebrew word for stretched is natah. It does not mean an explosion, a flinging out, or the type of stretching that encounters increasing resistance, as with a spring. Natah is more like the effortless reaching out of one’s hand.
Energy flowed into the universe as stretching progressed. According to the big bang theory, stars, galaxies, and black holes began forming after 500,000,000 years. According to the stretching explanation, these bodies were formed (or began) near the beginning of time—early in the creation week. Because matter and starlight occupy space, they were also stretched.
There is a great deal of evidence supporting the stretching idea. You can find it here:
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - The Evidence
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1456838 wrote: God did not make Himself. That would be impossible, even for God. He reveals in His Bible that He has always existed. How is that possible? There are many things we have no answer for. For example:
Join me on an imaginary trip into the past—way back into the past. Let’s go all the way back to the very beginning of the universe. There are some who believe the universe had no beginning; that it has always existed. I think most scientists disagree with such a belief. One reason they give is the existence of radioactivity. Radioactive materials still exist and are still in the process of breaking down into stable materials. The stars are a good example of this process. There are still stars burning with what scientists call thermonuclear fusion, including our sun. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. If the universe has always existed, everything would be in equilibrium. The whole universe would be stable. There would be no movement and no difference in temperature. Since that is not the state of the universe, it must have had a beginning. So imagine we are standing at the very beginning of the universe. Since it did have a beginning, then there must have been a time before the beginning. Now let’s take another step into the past. Let’s go back before the beginning. What will we be likely to find here? Well we should expect to find nothing shouldn’t we? Absolutely nothing! Not even a single atom. Not even a single electron. Nothing! In every direction from where we are standing there is nothing but totally empty space.
But what is space? Where did it come from? Where does it begin? Where does it end? But how is this possible? How can it extend in all directions from our imaginary position without ending? It cannot end, can it? What would lie on the other side of the end? On the other hand, how can it not end? These seem to be the only two possibilities and yet neither of them is possible, are they? Using logic and experience, we have arrived at a point that we are unable to understand or explain.
As if that were not enough of a problem, consider the fact that out of this absolute nothingness the universe appears. But how is that possible? All of our experience and logic tells us something cannot come from nothing by any natural source. And yet there it is. Sane people cannot deny that the universe does exist, can they? Using our experience and logic, we would have to conclude that the existence of the universe is impossible, and yet it does exist.
Have you ever thought about these things? Would you agree with me that we cannot answer these questions using observation, experience, experimentation, and logic? These questions seem to be beyond our ability to answer. If there is an answer, I’ve never heard one that is based on observation, experience, experimentation, facts and logic. We will have to admit that there are some facts that we simply do not have the ability to understand or explain.
Reincarnation in the Bible? by Dan Carlton | 9781491811009 | Paperback | Barnes & Noble
If there is an answer, I’ve never heard one that is based on observation, experience, experimentation, facts and logic.
So how much of your above post has an atom of observation, experience, experimentation, facts or logic
Whereas science and scientists utilise all of these and come to a verifiable and provable conclusion. 98% of scientists would concur with that
Your only basis for coming to such a conclusion is that God must have *always* been there. There is no evidence for that bar your own personal beliefs
Join me on an imaginary trip into the past—way back into the past. Let’s go all the way back to the very beginning of the universe. There are some who believe the universe had no beginning; that it has always existed. I think most scientists disagree with such a belief. One reason they give is the existence of radioactivity. Radioactive materials still exist and are still in the process of breaking down into stable materials. The stars are a good example of this process. There are still stars burning with what scientists call thermonuclear fusion, including our sun. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. If the universe has always existed, everything would be in equilibrium. The whole universe would be stable. There would be no movement and no difference in temperature. Since that is not the state of the universe, it must have had a beginning. So imagine we are standing at the very beginning of the universe. Since it did have a beginning, then there must have been a time before the beginning. Now let’s take another step into the past. Let’s go back before the beginning. What will we be likely to find here? Well we should expect to find nothing shouldn’t we? Absolutely nothing! Not even a single atom. Not even a single electron. Nothing! In every direction from where we are standing there is nothing but totally empty space.
But what is space? Where did it come from? Where does it begin? Where does it end? But how is this possible? How can it extend in all directions from our imaginary position without ending? It cannot end, can it? What would lie on the other side of the end? On the other hand, how can it not end? These seem to be the only two possibilities and yet neither of them is possible, are they? Using logic and experience, we have arrived at a point that we are unable to understand or explain.
As if that were not enough of a problem, consider the fact that out of this absolute nothingness the universe appears. But how is that possible? All of our experience and logic tells us something cannot come from nothing by any natural source. And yet there it is. Sane people cannot deny that the universe does exist, can they? Using our experience and logic, we would have to conclude that the existence of the universe is impossible, and yet it does exist.
Have you ever thought about these things? Would you agree with me that we cannot answer these questions using observation, experience, experimentation, and logic? These questions seem to be beyond our ability to answer. If there is an answer, I’ve never heard one that is based on observation, experience, experimentation, facts and logic. We will have to admit that there are some facts that we simply do not have the ability to understand or explain.
Reincarnation in the Bible? by Dan Carlton | 9781491811009 | Paperback | Barnes & Noble
If there is an answer, I’ve never heard one that is based on observation, experience, experimentation, facts and logic.
So how much of your above post has an atom of observation, experience, experimentation, facts or logic
Whereas science and scientists utilise all of these and come to a verifiable and provable conclusion. 98% of scientists would concur with that
Your only basis for coming to such a conclusion is that God must have *always* been there. There is no evidence for that bar your own personal beliefs
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1456830 wrote: Where has evolution been observed?
We can start with one of Darwin's favorite subjects.
Recent evolution observered in Gallapagos Ground Finches
Or we could talk about how the overuse of Antibiotics and antibacterial soaps have helped to create "superbugs".
And there is the study on the evolution of Cane Toads since their introduction into Australia, not to mention the several other species which have adapted to those invaders.
Adapting to an invasive species: Toxic cane toads induce morphological change in Australian snakes
Or the Midwestern rootworm that has adapted to Monsanto's GM designed to kill them
These are a few examples.
We can start with one of Darwin's favorite subjects.
Recent evolution observered in Gallapagos Ground Finches
Or we could talk about how the overuse of Antibiotics and antibacterial soaps have helped to create "superbugs".
And there is the study on the evolution of Cane Toads since their introduction into Australia, not to mention the several other species which have adapted to those invaders.
Adapting to an invasive species: Toxic cane toads induce morphological change in Australian snakes
Or the Midwestern rootworm that has adapted to Monsanto's GM designed to kill them
These are a few examples.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1456770 wrote:
What the YEC folks seem to have a problem with is the idea that something in the Bible might be fundamentally wrong. They have put their faith in this collection of fairy tales instead of the God of the Universe. And now all of the evidence suggests that their precious book may not be the infallible shield to protect them from reality that they once hoped it was.
So they clap their hands over their ears and sing loudly, in hopes of drowning all of their doubts under a barrage of self-serving claptrap, while the world sails by unmoved by their personal panic.
God Did NOT write the book. Man wrote it. And Man is fallible. The precious book proves nothing if not that singular fact.
Man did write the Bible at God's inspiration. There are many reasons supporting this fact including the existence of hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
Bible Accuracy
1. Archaeology has confirmed the historical accuracy of the Bible:
The Rocks Cry Out
In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? • ChristianAnswers.Net
Archaeology and the Bible Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net
2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
Scientific Facts in The Bible
Science Confirms the Bible - RationalWiki
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF THE BIBLE
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Science and the Bible
3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
100prophecies.org
101 End Times Bible Prophecy
About Bible Prophecy
Bible Prophecies Fulfilled
Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible
Bible Prophecy
No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.
What the YEC folks seem to have a problem with is the idea that something in the Bible might be fundamentally wrong. They have put their faith in this collection of fairy tales instead of the God of the Universe. And now all of the evidence suggests that their precious book may not be the infallible shield to protect them from reality that they once hoped it was.
So they clap their hands over their ears and sing loudly, in hopes of drowning all of their doubts under a barrage of self-serving claptrap, while the world sails by unmoved by their personal panic.
God Did NOT write the book. Man wrote it. And Man is fallible. The precious book proves nothing if not that singular fact.
Man did write the Bible at God's inspiration. There are many reasons supporting this fact including the existence of hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
Bible Accuracy
1. Archaeology has confirmed the historical accuracy of the Bible:
The Rocks Cry Out
In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? • ChristianAnswers.Net
Archaeology and the Bible Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net
2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
Scientific Facts in The Bible
Science Confirms the Bible - RationalWiki
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF THE BIBLE
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Science and the Bible
3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
100prophecies.org
101 End Times Bible Prophecy
About Bible Prophecy
Bible Prophecies Fulfilled
Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible
Bible Prophecy
No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1456824 wrote: Actually, Pahu, you have provided a lot of opinions, and very little evidence.
And little, if any science.
And repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it more true.
Do not despair - there is more in the form of a "continued ....... "
And little, if any science.
And repeating the same thing over and over again does not make it more true.
Do not despair - there is more in the form of a "continued ....... "
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1456846 wrote: Man did write the Bible at God's inspiration.
Hitler wrote Mein Kampf with far more "inspiration" than that.
Hitler wrote Mein Kampf with far more "inspiration" than that.
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1456845 wrote: We can start with one of Darwin's favorite subjects.
Recent evolution observered in Gallapagos Ground Finches
Or we could talk about how the overuse of Antibiotics and antibacterial soaps have helped to create "superbugs".
And there is the study on the evolution of Cane Toads since their introduction into Australia, not to mention the several other species which have adapted to those invaders.
Adapting to an invasive species: Toxic cane toads induce morphological change in Australian snakes
Or the Midwestern rootworm that has adapted to Monsanto's GM designed to kill them
These are a few examples.
None of which demonstrate evolution. They demonstrate the built in ability of life forms to adapt to changes in their environment. None of your above examples support the evolutionary claim of species changing into different species.
The finch has been used by many to support the doctrine of evolution. Charles Darwin observed thirteen different species of finches on one island that had variations in shape and size of beak. He proposed that the different species evolved from one original pair, each adapting to its habitat and diet. But this is not evidence for molecules-to-man evolution, but rather an example of natural selection and adaptation. When God created the finch kind, He created it with all the necessary information it needed to survive in the wild. On the islands where Darwin observed them, they had adapted to their diet and their surroundings, resulting in several “different varieties, which needed different beaks to eat different things in times of drought and in times of plenty.
https://answersingenesis.org/kids/birds/finch/
Recent evolution observered in Gallapagos Ground Finches
Or we could talk about how the overuse of Antibiotics and antibacterial soaps have helped to create "superbugs".
And there is the study on the evolution of Cane Toads since their introduction into Australia, not to mention the several other species which have adapted to those invaders.
Adapting to an invasive species: Toxic cane toads induce morphological change in Australian snakes
Or the Midwestern rootworm that has adapted to Monsanto's GM designed to kill them
These are a few examples.
None of which demonstrate evolution. They demonstrate the built in ability of life forms to adapt to changes in their environment. None of your above examples support the evolutionary claim of species changing into different species.
The finch has been used by many to support the doctrine of evolution. Charles Darwin observed thirteen different species of finches on one island that had variations in shape and size of beak. He proposed that the different species evolved from one original pair, each adapting to its habitat and diet. But this is not evidence for molecules-to-man evolution, but rather an example of natural selection and adaptation. When God created the finch kind, He created it with all the necessary information it needed to survive in the wild. On the islands where Darwin observed them, they had adapted to their diet and their surroundings, resulting in several “different varieties, which needed different beaks to eat different things in times of drought and in times of plenty.
https://answersingenesis.org/kids/birds/finch/
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1456834 wrote: Evolution denies God.
Huh?
So the abundance of homo and pedofilia within the Church clergy is a simple misrepresentation of the faith in G_d, but a slight tweek in the story of how creation came about would be total denial of His existance?
That might make sense except that it doesn't.
Huh?
So the abundance of homo and pedofilia within the Church clergy is a simple misrepresentation of the faith in G_d, but a slight tweek in the story of how creation came about would be total denial of His existance?
That might make sense except that it doesn't.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1456851 wrote: None of which demonstrate evolution. They demonstrate the built in ability of life forms to adapt to changes in their environment.
:-3:-3:-2
:wah::wah::yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl
That, my friend, IS Evolution.
:-3:-3:-2
:wah::wah::yh_rotfl:yh_rotflThat, my friend, IS Evolution.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1456838 wrote: God did not make Himself. That would be impossible, even for God.
G_d with limitations? Hmmmm. What a very profoundly, unique idea!
G_d with limitations? Hmmmm. What a very profoundly, unique idea!
Science Disproves Evolution
Originally Posted by Pahu
None of which demonstrate evolution. They demonstrate the built in ability of life forms to adapt to changes in their environment.
LarsMac;1456854 wrote: :-3:-3:-2:wah::wah::yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl
That, my friend, IS Evolution.
Not so. Evolution is change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
None of which demonstrate evolution. They demonstrate the built in ability of life forms to adapt to changes in their environment.
LarsMac;1456854 wrote: :-3:-3:-2
:wah::wah::yh_rotfl:yh_rotflThat, my friend, IS Evolution.
Not so. Evolution is change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1456874 wrote: Originally Posted by Pahu
None of which demonstrate evolution. They demonstrate the built in ability of life forms to adapt to changes in their environment.
Not so. Evolution is change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
Sorry, Evolution is the simple process, as I mentioned.
New species can, and have developed as a result of evolution when a two groups become isolated, and the variations in the gene pools diverge far enough that traits are not shared across both gene pools.
None of which demonstrate evolution. They demonstrate the built in ability of life forms to adapt to changes in their environment.
Not so. Evolution is change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
Sorry, Evolution is the simple process, as I mentioned.
New species can, and have developed as a result of evolution when a two groups become isolated, and the variations in the gene pools diverge far enough that traits are not shared across both gene pools.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1456874 wrote: ..... Evolution is change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations ....... resulting in the development of new species.
When I was a child I thought all domestic cats were female counterparts to domestic dogs - they being all male.
When I was a child I thought all domestic cats were female counterparts to domestic dogs - they being all male.
Science Disproves Evolution
The First Cell 1
If, despite virtually impossible odds, proteins arose by chance processes, there is not the remotest reason to believe they could ever form a membrane-encased, self-reproducing, self-repairing, metabolizing, living cell (a).
a. “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. ... We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully ‘designed’ to have come into existence by chance. Dawkins, pp. 1, 43.
Yet, after such acknowledgments, Dawkins, an avowed atheist and perhaps the world’s leading Darwinian, tries to show that life came about by chance without an intelligent designer. Dawkins fails to grasp the complexity in life.
“The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle. Denton, p. 264.
“Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which—a functional protein or gene—is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artefacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of twentieth-century technology. It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate. Ibid. p. 342.
“We have seen that self-replicating systems capable of Darwinian evolution appear too complex to have arisen suddenly from a prebiotic soup. This conclusion applies both to nucleic acid systems and to hypothetical protein-based genetic systems. Shapiro, p. 207.
“We do not understand how this gap in organization was closed, and this remains the most crucial unsolved problem concerning the origin of life. Ibid. p. 299.
“More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance. Klaus Dose, “The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 13, No. 4, 1988, p. 348.
[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown]
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1456854 wrote: :-3:-3:-2:wah::wah::yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl
That, my friend, IS Evolution.
Pahu;1456874 wrote: Originally Posted by Pahu
None of which demonstrate evolution. They demonstrate the built in ability of life forms to adapt to changes in their environment.
The biggest faux pas so far. Shooting himself in the foot with what is practically the Dictionary definition of Evolution in order to prove it doesn't exist.
Although I am very new to these forums (and I am aware that this same person has been making the same unfounded argument for years), I have noticed a common trend to his posts. None of them show any trace of his thinking for himself. Everything relies on copying & pasting the 'facts' from the same lunatic fringe. Every single source link refers to websites that produce not evidence apart from their denial of the facts around them. "I think, therefore I am" vs "We're not allowed to think. God thinks for us".
The simple fact is that even the Bible has to be flawed, as it was written by humans, thousands of years after the event, by those who just had their imagination & the tales of hearsay to go by. These scriptures were then translated, reinterpreted, rewritten, retranslated, over & over again, thousands of times. Yet it is still held to be the absolute truth. Humans are not perfect, yet humans wrote the Bible. Ergo, the Bible is not perfect.
Ever since Man began to evolve, he has been asking questions - Who, What, Where, Why, When, How, and through trial & error finding solutions to many of these questions, like "How can I make this arrow more effective for hunting? Well, we used to throw rocks to kill our prey. What if I tie this sharp bit of flint to my arrow..." A need leads to a question. A question leads to a solution. However, there have always been much bigger questions that were unanswerable - ones that Man could not affect in any way, such as Night & Day, the Tides of the Sea, the Seasons of the Year, Earthquakes, Volcanoes. All of these were far beyond their comprehension, and so were attributed to some unseen imaginary being that they deemed to be a God.
These days, despite the torturous efforts of the Church to prohibit anyone from asking questions that differed to the Sacred Texts of the Bible, questions still got asked & answers found. Answers that proved the interpretations of the Bible to be flawed.
These days the vast majority of even the most extremist denominations will accept that the tides are the direct effect of the gravitational pull of the moon, and that the earth spins on its own axis as it orbits the sun, causing night & day, and that the earth is tilted as it makes the orbit, causing the seasons of the year. Most denominations will even accept the validity of evolution, although there are some that believe the Primordial Slime to have been created by God, but at least that is some sort of compromise.
:wah::wah::yh_rotfl:yh_rotflThat, my friend, IS Evolution.
Pahu;1456874 wrote: Originally Posted by Pahu
None of which demonstrate evolution. They demonstrate the built in ability of life forms to adapt to changes in their environment.
The biggest faux pas so far. Shooting himself in the foot with what is practically the Dictionary definition of Evolution in order to prove it doesn't exist.
Although I am very new to these forums (and I am aware that this same person has been making the same unfounded argument for years), I have noticed a common trend to his posts. None of them show any trace of his thinking for himself. Everything relies on copying & pasting the 'facts' from the same lunatic fringe. Every single source link refers to websites that produce not evidence apart from their denial of the facts around them. "I think, therefore I am" vs "We're not allowed to think. God thinks for us".
The simple fact is that even the Bible has to be flawed, as it was written by humans, thousands of years after the event, by those who just had their imagination & the tales of hearsay to go by. These scriptures were then translated, reinterpreted, rewritten, retranslated, over & over again, thousands of times. Yet it is still held to be the absolute truth. Humans are not perfect, yet humans wrote the Bible. Ergo, the Bible is not perfect.
Ever since Man began to evolve, he has been asking questions - Who, What, Where, Why, When, How, and through trial & error finding solutions to many of these questions, like "How can I make this arrow more effective for hunting? Well, we used to throw rocks to kill our prey. What if I tie this sharp bit of flint to my arrow..." A need leads to a question. A question leads to a solution. However, there have always been much bigger questions that were unanswerable - ones that Man could not affect in any way, such as Night & Day, the Tides of the Sea, the Seasons of the Year, Earthquakes, Volcanoes. All of these were far beyond their comprehension, and so were attributed to some unseen imaginary being that they deemed to be a God.
These days, despite the torturous efforts of the Church to prohibit anyone from asking questions that differed to the Sacred Texts of the Bible, questions still got asked & answers found. Answers that proved the interpretations of the Bible to be flawed.
These days the vast majority of even the most extremist denominations will accept that the tides are the direct effect of the gravitational pull of the moon, and that the earth spins on its own axis as it orbits the sun, causing night & day, and that the earth is tilted as it makes the orbit, causing the seasons of the year. Most denominations will even accept the validity of evolution, although there are some that believe the Primordial Slime to have been created by God, but at least that is some sort of compromise.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1457253 wrote: The biggest faux pas so far. Shooting himself in the foot with what is practically the Dictionary definition of Evolution in order to prove it doesn't exist.
The horrid thing is that it won't put a stop to him.
The horrid thing is that it won't put a stop to him.
Science Disproves Evolution
FourPart;1457253 wrote: The biggest faux pas so far. Shooting himself in the foot with what is practically the Dictionary definition of Evolution in order to prove it doesn't exist.
The dictionary definition of evolution is: "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species."
Adjusting to changes in environment does not result it new species.
Although I am very new to these forums (and I am aware that this same person has been making the same unfounded argument for years), I have noticed a common trend to his posts. None of them show any trace of his thinking for himself. Everything relies on copying & pasting the 'facts' from the same lunatic fringe.
That lunatic fringe includes the scientists that are quoted and confirm the conclusions, such as:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
The simple fact is that even the Bible has to be flawed, as it was written by humans, thousands of years after the event, by those who just had their imagination & the tales of hearsay to go by. These scriptures were then translated, reinterpreted, rewritten, retranslated, over & over again, thousands of times. Yet it is still held to be the absolute truth. Humans are not perfect, yet humans wrote the Bible. Ergo, the Bible is not perfect.
Bible Accuracy
1. Archaeology has confirmed the historical accuracy of the Bible:
The Rocks Cry Out
In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? • ChristianAnswers.Net
Archaeology and the Bible Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net
2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
Scientific Facts in The Bible
Science Confirms the Bible - RationalWiki
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF THE BIBLE
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Science and the Bible
3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
100prophecies.org
101 End Times Bible Prophecy
About Bible Prophecy
Bible Prophecies Fulfilled
Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible
Bible Prophecy
No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.
The dictionary definition of evolution is: "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species."
Adjusting to changes in environment does not result it new species.
Although I am very new to these forums (and I am aware that this same person has been making the same unfounded argument for years), I have noticed a common trend to his posts. None of them show any trace of his thinking for himself. Everything relies on copying & pasting the 'facts' from the same lunatic fringe.
That lunatic fringe includes the scientists that are quoted and confirm the conclusions, such as:
Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, etc.
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
The simple fact is that even the Bible has to be flawed, as it was written by humans, thousands of years after the event, by those who just had their imagination & the tales of hearsay to go by. These scriptures were then translated, reinterpreted, rewritten, retranslated, over & over again, thousands of times. Yet it is still held to be the absolute truth. Humans are not perfect, yet humans wrote the Bible. Ergo, the Bible is not perfect.
Bible Accuracy
1. Archaeology has confirmed the historical accuracy of the Bible:
The Rocks Cry Out
In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible? • ChristianAnswers.Net
Archaeology and the Bible Archaeology and the Bible • ChristianAnswers.Net
2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:
Scientific Facts in The Bible
Science Confirms the Bible - RationalWiki
SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF THE BIBLE
Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge
Science and the Bible
3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:
100prophecies.org
101 End Times Bible Prophecy
About Bible Prophecy
Bible Prophecies Fulfilled
Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible
Bible Prophecy
No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1457281 wrote: The dictionary definition of evolution is: "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species."
Adjusting to changes in environment does not result it new species.
...
Which dictionary would that be?
Adjusting to changes in environment does not result it new species.
...
Which dictionary would that be?
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1457281 wrote: The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:
If it wouldn't disgust me so terribly, I'd send you a list of Nazi scientists who swore that eugenics was the thing of the future and that it proves the German race is supperior to all others. Hey! Who can argue with a scientist?
If it wouldn't disgust me so terribly, I'd send you a list of Nazi scientists who swore that eugenics was the thing of the future and that it proves the German race is supperior to all others. Hey! Who can argue with a scientist?
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1457284 wrote: Which dictionary would that be?
The Free Dictionary online. Here is another one from Dictionary.com: Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
Here is what Wikipedia has to say:
Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1]
All life on Earth is descended from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.8 billion years ago. Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be inferred from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared DNA sequences.[2] These homologous traits and sequences are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct evolutionary histories, using both existing species and the fossil record. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction.[3]
Charles Darwin was the first to formulate a scientific argument for the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. Evolution by natural selection is a process inferred from three facts about populations: 1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, 2) traits vary among individuals, leading to different rates of survival and reproduction, and 3) trait differences are heritable.[4] Thus, when members of a population die they are replaced by the progeny of parents better adapted to survive and reproduce in the environment in which natural selection takes place. This process creates and preserves traits that are seemingly fitted for the functional roles they perform.[5] Natural selection is the only known cause of adaptation, but not the only known cause of evolution. Other, nonadaptive causes of evolution include mutation and genetic drift.[6]
In the early 20th century, genetics was integrated with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection through the discipline of population genetics. The importance of natural selection as a cause of evolution was accepted into other branches of biology. Moreover, previously held notions about evolution, such as orthogenesis and "progress" became obsolete.[7] Scientists continue to study various aspects of evolution by forming and testing hypotheses, constructing scientific theories, using observational data, and performing experiments in both the field and the laboratory. Biologists agree that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established facts in science.[8] Discoveries in evolutionary biology have made a significant impact not just within the traditional branches of biology, but also in other academic disciplines (e.g., anthropology and psychology) and on society at large.[9][10]
Note that Wikipedia is giving the standard evidence free definition of evolution, which science disproves.
The Free Dictionary online. Here is another one from Dictionary.com: Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
Here is what Wikipedia has to say:
Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1]
All life on Earth is descended from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.8 billion years ago. Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be inferred from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared DNA sequences.[2] These homologous traits and sequences are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct evolutionary histories, using both existing species and the fossil record. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction.[3]
Charles Darwin was the first to formulate a scientific argument for the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. Evolution by natural selection is a process inferred from three facts about populations: 1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, 2) traits vary among individuals, leading to different rates of survival and reproduction, and 3) trait differences are heritable.[4] Thus, when members of a population die they are replaced by the progeny of parents better adapted to survive and reproduce in the environment in which natural selection takes place. This process creates and preserves traits that are seemingly fitted for the functional roles they perform.[5] Natural selection is the only known cause of adaptation, but not the only known cause of evolution. Other, nonadaptive causes of evolution include mutation and genetic drift.[6]
In the early 20th century, genetics was integrated with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection through the discipline of population genetics. The importance of natural selection as a cause of evolution was accepted into other branches of biology. Moreover, previously held notions about evolution, such as orthogenesis and "progress" became obsolete.[7] Scientists continue to study various aspects of evolution by forming and testing hypotheses, constructing scientific theories, using observational data, and performing experiments in both the field and the laboratory. Biologists agree that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established facts in science.[8] Discoveries in evolutionary biology have made a significant impact not just within the traditional branches of biology, but also in other academic disciplines (e.g., anthropology and psychology) and on society at large.[9][10]
Note that Wikipedia is giving the standard evidence free definition of evolution, which science disproves.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
High Threshold;1457289 wrote: If it wouldn't disgust me so terribly, I'd send you a list of Nazi scientists who swore that eugenics was the thing of the future and that it proves the German race is supperior to all others. Hey! Who can argue with a scientist?
Other scientists.
Other scientists.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Science Disproves Evolution
I see.
Well, here are some other dictionaries. I reckon we need to establish some sort of meaningful consensus on the definition over which we are arguing, before it makes any sense at all to continue a discussion.
EVOLU'TION, n. [L. evolutio.] The act of unfolding or unrolling.
1. A series of things unrolled or unfolded; as the evolution of ages.
2. In geometry, the unfolding or opening of a curve,and making it describe an evolvent. The equable evolution of the periphery of a circle, or other curve, is such a gradual approach of the circumference to rectitude, as that its parts do all concur, and equally evolve or unbend; so that the same line becomes successively a less arc of a reciprocally greater circle, till at last they change into a straight line.
3. In algebra, evolution is the extraction of roots from powers; the reverse of involution.
4. In military tactics, the doubling of ranks or files, wheeling, countermarching or other motion by which the disposition of troops is changed, in order to attack or defend with more advantage, or to occupy a different post.
Webster's unabridged 1913
Evolution
Evolution (evolution)
n. (?)
Ev`o*lu"tion
[L. evolutio an unrolling: cf. F. évolution evolution. See Evolve.]
The act of unfolding or unrolling; hence, in the process of growth; development; as, the evolution of a
flower from a bud, or an animal from the egg.
A series of things unrolled or unfolded.
"The whole evolution of ages." Dr. H. More.
"The formation of an involute by unwrapping a thread from a curve as an evolute."
Hutton.
The extraction of roots] -- the reverse of involution.
A prescribed movement of a body of troops, or a vessel or fleet] any movement designed to effect a new arrangement or disposition; a maneuver.
"Those evolutions are best which can be executed with the greatest celerity, compatible with regularity."
Campbell.
A general name for the history of the steps by which any living organism has acquired the morphological and physiological characters which distinguish it; a gradual unfolding of successive phases of growth or development.
(b)
That series of changes under natural law which involves continuous progress from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous in structure, and from the single and simple to the diverse and manifold in quality or function. The pocess is by some limited to organic beings; by others it is applied to the inorganic and the psychical. It is also applied to explain the existence and growth of institutions, manners, language, civilization, and every product of human activity. The agencies and laws of the process are variously
explained by different philosophers.
"Evolution is to me series with development." Gladstone.
Merriam-Websters Online 2014
evo·lu·tion noun ËŒe-vÉ™-ˈlü-shÉ™n, ˌē-vÉ™-
biology
: a theory that the differences between modern plants and animals are because of changes that happened by a natural process over a very long time
: the process by which changes in plants and animals happen over time
: a process of slow change and development
Well, here are some other dictionaries. I reckon we need to establish some sort of meaningful consensus on the definition over which we are arguing, before it makes any sense at all to continue a discussion.
EVOLU'TION, n. [L. evolutio.] The act of unfolding or unrolling.
1. A series of things unrolled or unfolded; as the evolution of ages.
2. In geometry, the unfolding or opening of a curve,and making it describe an evolvent. The equable evolution of the periphery of a circle, or other curve, is such a gradual approach of the circumference to rectitude, as that its parts do all concur, and equally evolve or unbend; so that the same line becomes successively a less arc of a reciprocally greater circle, till at last they change into a straight line.
3. In algebra, evolution is the extraction of roots from powers; the reverse of involution.
4. In military tactics, the doubling of ranks or files, wheeling, countermarching or other motion by which the disposition of troops is changed, in order to attack or defend with more advantage, or to occupy a different post.
Webster's unabridged 1913
Evolution
Evolution (evolution)
n. (?)
Ev`o*lu"tion
[L. evolutio an unrolling: cf. F. évolution evolution. See Evolve.]
The act of unfolding or unrolling; hence, in the process of growth; development; as, the evolution of a
flower from a bud, or an animal from the egg.
A series of things unrolled or unfolded.
"The whole evolution of ages." Dr. H. More.
"The formation of an involute by unwrapping a thread from a curve as an evolute."
Hutton.
The extraction of roots] -- the reverse of involution.
A prescribed movement of a body of troops, or a vessel or fleet] any movement designed to effect a new arrangement or disposition; a maneuver.
"Those evolutions are best which can be executed with the greatest celerity, compatible with regularity."
Campbell.
A general name for the history of the steps by which any living organism has acquired the morphological and physiological characters which distinguish it; a gradual unfolding of successive phases of growth or development.
(b)
That series of changes under natural law which involves continuous progress from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous in structure, and from the single and simple to the diverse and manifold in quality or function. The pocess is by some limited to organic beings; by others it is applied to the inorganic and the psychical. It is also applied to explain the existence and growth of institutions, manners, language, civilization, and every product of human activity. The agencies and laws of the process are variously
explained by different philosophers.
"Evolution is to me series with development." Gladstone.
Merriam-Websters Online 2014
evo·lu·tion noun ËŒe-vÉ™-ˈlü-shÉ™n, ˌē-vÉ™-
biology
: a theory that the differences between modern plants and animals are because of changes that happened by a natural process over a very long time
: the process by which changes in plants and animals happen over time
: a process of slow change and development
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1457295 wrote: Other scientists.
So "your" scientists would have lost to Nazi scientists in the debate, or at least have stood still to listen?
So "your" scientists would have lost to Nazi scientists in the debate, or at least have stood still to listen?
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Science Disproves Evolution
LarsMac;1457296 wrote: ..... I reckon we need to establish some sort of meaningful consensus on the definition over which we are arguing, before it makes any sense at all to continue a discussion.
An excellent basis for any discussion and/or debate.
An excellent basis for any discussion and/or debate.
Science Disproves Evolution
Pahu;1457291 wrote: The Free Dictionary online. Here is another one from Dictionary.com: Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
Here is what Wikipedia has to say:
Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1]
All life on Earth is descended from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.8 billion years ago. Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be inferred from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared DNA sequences.[2] These homologous traits and sequences are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct evolutionary histories, using both existing species and the fossil record. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction.[3]
Charles Darwin was the first to formulate a scientific argument for the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. Evolution by natural selection is a process inferred from three facts about populations: 1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, 2) traits vary among individuals, leading to different rates of survival and reproduction, and 3) trait differences are heritable.[4] Thus, when members of a population die they are replaced by the progeny of parents better adapted to survive and reproduce in the environment in which natural selection takes place. This process creates and preserves traits that are seemingly fitted for the functional roles they perform.[5] Natural selection is the only known cause of adaptation, but not the only known cause of evolution. Other, nonadaptive causes of evolution include mutation and genetic drift.[6]
In the early 20th century, genetics was integrated with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection through the discipline of population genetics. The importance of natural selection as a cause of evolution was accepted into other branches of biology. Moreover, previously held notions about evolution, such as orthogenesis and "progress" became obsolete.[7] Scientists continue to study various aspects of evolution by forming and testing hypotheses, constructing scientific theories, using observational data, and performing experiments in both the field and the laboratory. Biologists agree that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established facts in science.[8] Discoveries in evolutionary biology have made a significant impact not just within the traditional branches of biology, but also in other academic disciplines (e.g., anthropology and psychology) and on society at large.[9][10]
Note that Wikipedia is giving the standard evidence free definition of evolution, which science disproves.
Wikipedia is hardly a reliable source. While it can be useful to find a good collection of resources, I don't suggest quoting Wikipedia to win arguments.
And you know, of course, that Darwin never mentioned "Evolution" when writing his papers on natural selection.
It was his fifth edition or so, before he ever mentioned it. And that was refering to others' use of the term.
Here is what Wikipedia has to say:
Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1]
All life on Earth is descended from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.8 billion years ago. Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be inferred from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared DNA sequences.[2] These homologous traits and sequences are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct evolutionary histories, using both existing species and the fossil record. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction.[3]
Charles Darwin was the first to formulate a scientific argument for the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. Evolution by natural selection is a process inferred from three facts about populations: 1) more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, 2) traits vary among individuals, leading to different rates of survival and reproduction, and 3) trait differences are heritable.[4] Thus, when members of a population die they are replaced by the progeny of parents better adapted to survive and reproduce in the environment in which natural selection takes place. This process creates and preserves traits that are seemingly fitted for the functional roles they perform.[5] Natural selection is the only known cause of adaptation, but not the only known cause of evolution. Other, nonadaptive causes of evolution include mutation and genetic drift.[6]
In the early 20th century, genetics was integrated with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection through the discipline of population genetics. The importance of natural selection as a cause of evolution was accepted into other branches of biology. Moreover, previously held notions about evolution, such as orthogenesis and "progress" became obsolete.[7] Scientists continue to study various aspects of evolution by forming and testing hypotheses, constructing scientific theories, using observational data, and performing experiments in both the field and the laboratory. Biologists agree that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established facts in science.[8] Discoveries in evolutionary biology have made a significant impact not just within the traditional branches of biology, but also in other academic disciplines (e.g., anthropology and psychology) and on society at large.[9][10]
Note that Wikipedia is giving the standard evidence free definition of evolution, which science disproves.
Wikipedia is hardly a reliable source. While it can be useful to find a good collection of resources, I don't suggest quoting Wikipedia to win arguments.
And you know, of course, that Darwin never mentioned "Evolution" when writing his papers on natural selection.
It was his fifth edition or so, before he ever mentioned it. And that was refering to others' use of the term.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
Mark Aspam
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:00 am
Science Disproves Evolution
WOW!!! I'm the 1000th (well, OK, almost the 1000th) poster to this thread! Do I win a prize?
Seriously, though, I'm amazed that the thread is 3 1/2 years old, with 1000 entries, and I just discovered it yesterday! I must be losin' it in my old age!
It seems to me, and I don't mean this as a personal affront to ANY of the contributors, that this thread is possibly the worst waste of web space in the history of this forum.
If "science disproves evolution", then there would be legitimate scientific journals, articles, books, essays, that affirm that. LEGITIMATE science, with legitimate PEER REVIEW, not the blathering of cranks and fanatics! Can anyone name ONE such publication?
There would be legitimate science textbooks, not pseudo-religious claptrap, that explain why the evolution of species, due to natural selection and other processes, has been disproved, SCIENTIFIC textbooks, not ad hoc nonsense with beautiful color photographs and absolutely no basis in fact. Can anyone name ONE such textbook, along with the well-known, respected publisher's name?
Seriously, though, I'm amazed that the thread is 3 1/2 years old, with 1000 entries, and I just discovered it yesterday! I must be losin' it in my old age!
It seems to me, and I don't mean this as a personal affront to ANY of the contributors, that this thread is possibly the worst waste of web space in the history of this forum.
If "science disproves evolution", then there would be legitimate scientific journals, articles, books, essays, that affirm that. LEGITIMATE science, with legitimate PEER REVIEW, not the blathering of cranks and fanatics! Can anyone name ONE such publication?
There would be legitimate science textbooks, not pseudo-religious claptrap, that explain why the evolution of species, due to natural selection and other processes, has been disproved, SCIENTIFIC textbooks, not ad hoc nonsense with beautiful color photographs and absolutely no basis in fact. Can anyone name ONE such textbook, along with the well-known, respected publisher's name?
Science Disproves Evolution
Yes, we have all been waiting for the science to show up in this thread for 3.5 years.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Science Disproves Evolution
Mark Aspam;1457346 wrote: WOW!!! I'm the 1000th (well, OK, almost the 1000th) poster to this thread! Do I win a prize?
Nope. The prize goes to me! I win a front-row seat at the Messiah's next coming.
Nope. The prize goes to me! I win a front-row seat at the Messiah's next coming.