Is Evolution the mechanism that caused all living things?
YES! Procaryotes are my distant relatives.
50%
[ 1 ]
NO! Natural selection can only help existing organisms adapt, it cannot create new organisms
50%
[ 1 ]
NO IDEA! Life began so long ago we can only guess what happened. Nobody knows.
0%
[ 0 ]
I DON'T CARE! It does't affect my day to day life. Leave it to the boffins to figure out.
0%
[ 0 ]
Total Votes : 2
Author
Message
petros Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 13 Aug 2007 Posts: 106 Location: UK
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 4:43 pm Post subject: Evolution, a theory in crisis...
I hope to present genuine scientific and philosophic problems with the dogma of evolution. I do not intent to prove 'creation' but in challenging evolution logic inevitably leads to a creator.
It is my conviction that evolution is a just a necessary materialistic creation tale for people in denial of the facts.
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 5:55 pm Post subject: Re: Evolution: A theory in Crisis...
petros wrote:
I hope to present genuine scientific and philosophic problems with the dogma of evolution. I do not intent to prove 'creation' but in challenging evolution logic inevitably leads to a creator.
It is my conviction that evolution is a just a necessity for people in denial of the facts.
Can you supply a link to the facts please? You've mistakenly added a link to Eddie Murphy Live.
evolution is just a theory, fossil records are yet to prove the theory correct, yet we are all taught it is true.
on the basis i do not believe certain theorys due to lack of evidence, i have to treat this subject the same way, which is i do not believe evolution untill it has been proven instead of a speculating theory, which fossils are yet to prove.
its just an idea that has been accepted as an explaination.
that dos'nt mean i believe in creation either.
there are to many unanswered questions about the universe and what caused life to start that proving one wrong dos'nt mean it is wrong.
it could just be we are looking in the wrong place for the evidence for all i know, that may sound a bizarre thing to say, but untill all the answers of how life came to be are found a possibility that only a brainwashed state school mindset can get in the way of.
for example the proof could lie under the ocean or even on another planet, but from what has been proved so far i have no reason to believe evolution when no proof is being found.
but untill all the answers of how life came to be are found a possibility that only a brainwashed state school mindset can get in the way of.
Now hold on there big fella, taught by whom exactly?
Firstly, I had the benefit of a private education and evolution was definitely not taught there. I just quizzed my daughters, the oldest has just left school and she was not taught 'evolution' during her state education - in fact, all three have had considerable exposure to religious education which, correct me if I am wrong, doesn't hold Mr Darwin in particularly high regard.
I would say from the experiences of my daughters, evolution is not being actively championed here in the west of england via state education - creationism is still way out in front.
but until all the answers of how life came to be are found a possibility that only a brainwashed state school mindset can get in the way of.
Now hold on there big fella, taught by whom exactly?
Firstly, I had the benefit of a private education and evolution was definitely not taught there. I just quizzed my daughters, the oldest has just left school and she was not taught 'evolution' during her state education - in fact, all three have had considerable exposure to religious education which, correct me if I am wrong, doesn't hold Mr Darwin in particularly high regard.
I would say from the experiences of my daughters, evolution is not being actively championed here in the west of england via state education - creationism is still way out in front.
but until all the answers of how life came to be are found a possibility that only a brainwashed state school mindset can get in the way of.
Now hold on there big fella, taught by whom exactly?
Firstly, I had the benefit of a private education and evolution was definitely not taught there. I just quizzed my daughters, the oldest has just left school and she was not taught 'evolution' during her state education - in fact, all three have had considerable exposure to religious education which, correct me if I am wrong, doesn't hold Mr Darwin in particularly high regard.
I would say from the experiences of my daughters, evolution is not being actively championed here in the west of england via state education - creationism is still way out in front.
"The National Curriculum for science clearly sets down that pupils should be taught that the fossil record is evidence for evolution, and how variation and selection may lead to evolution or extinction."
education is not limited to children, there are many referances to man originating from apes during each year, documentarys etc, and alternative views have not become popular untill recent times, so a lot of the middle aged/older generations have been taught along the way that evolution is more fact than just a theory, i remember perfectly well the diagram of a changing ape into man in my science book which we were learning from, i remember because somebody who had the book before me had drawn a 'large tool on the ape'! as well as other pictures, and i was worried when i handed it in i'd get the blame!. my statement about brainwashing was unrelated to the subject, it was refering to those who think it impossible that our life may of originated elsewhere(a differant planet) and may mock such suggestions due to a closed mind.
which untill the answers of life are found, is one of the possible scenerios as far as im concerned.
evolution is a failed theory thouroughly debunked and disproven
even Darwin admitted that his theories failed because despite over 100 million fossils found there is not one single example of a transistional species whether living or extinct or in fossil form
today Darwin's novel is taught to our children as though it was fact rather than fiction.
Darwin's theories led to the rise of mass murderers like Hitler, Polt Pot, Mao and Stalin who were all belivers.
i had to stop watching the video almost straight away. i agree darwins theory is very weak and unproven, but just because it is dos'nt mean people should come up with the answers to fill the gap by giving one sided evidence for a god as a creator and darwins theory being wrong dos'nt prove there is a god as a creator.
im not saying it is'nt a possibility though, im just saying it is'nt the only possibility.
if there is a god, who or what created god etc etc? if creation is the only way to explain things exsisting you would always need a creator to create the creator.
maybe life on earth has a creator but interms of the universe something had to of come into exsistance from nothing even if it was god himself.
even if there are multiverses how did they all come about?
the more you think the more complicated it gets and the more you have to realise something has always been, which is something people cannot get there heads around because how can things just always exsist with no begining or end?
even chemical reactions require chemicals, what created them?
if there is a life outside this one how did that start, what made that place?
my brains hurting, its easier to believe in a god, im converted, hallilujah!
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 10:02 am Post subject:
stelios wrote:
evolution is a failed theory thouroughly debunked and disproven
even Darwin admitted that his theories failed because despite over 100 million fossils found there is not one single example of a transistional species whether living or extinct or in fossil form
Debunked and disproven how and by whom? It's still a useful theory that successfully explains the biological mechanism that adapts living things to a changing environment through an understandable process of incremental change.
stelios wrote:
today Darwin's novel is taught to our children as though it was fact rather than fiction.
The very name 'theory' of evolution disproves your assertion. It's a good working theory, not a fact. Only those who don't understand the concept of what a theory is could mistake it for anything else.
stelios wrote:
Darwin's theories led to the rise of mass murderers like Hitler, Polt Pot, Mao and Stalin who were all belivers.
This assertion is as ludicrous as blaming Faraday or Count Volta for modern day torturers and taser artists and is completely fatuous.
Psychopathic personalities will find justification for their actions wherever they need to, not vice versa, and to say a scientific theory devised for the benefit of biologists 'led' to something horrific shows a badly skewed understanding of cause and effect. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
today Darwin's novel is taught to our children as though it was fact rather than fiction.
Where exactly are our children taught evolution? All my daughters have had religious education taught to them as if that were fact not fiction.
"The National Curriculum for science clearly sets down that pupils should be taught that the fossil record is evidence for evolution, and how variation and selection may lead to evolution or extinction."
all schools have differant rules, all schools have differant teaching technics, and although schools mostly have the same types of lessons ie:maths, english, some schools do teach subjects others do not.
schools also vary in what they teach in each lesson which can even vary depending on which year your in.
for example when my sister who is two years older then me gets to the 4th/5th years she does course work on neopolean in history.
when i get to the 4th/5th year i do course work on WW1 and neopolean is not even given a mention.
it depends what is set out for course work and to be taught in lessons which can vary in each school and even each year.
there is also the possibility of missing the lessons that go over it through illness or having a holiday during school terms.
What people need to realise is that evolution is first and formost a theological objection. It is asumed knowledge about God. The basic premise is 'God would not have created the world like this therefore it must have arisen by natural means'. It was the influence of deism and platonism, which insists God remote and uninvolved in the world, on Darwin that pushed him in this direction. For a more indepth study on this read Darwin's God: Evolution and the problem of Evil by Conelius Hunter. Therefore Evolution is not science and science proves this.
I will continue to add articles and links to this thread.
Overview
1) Falsified results to prove life can begin from non-life
2) Faked diagrams to prove embrionic homology
3) Invented 'tree-of-life' to prove descent
4) unprovable assumptions drawn from homology
5) Poor experiments and fake photographs to show evolution in action
6) Slight variation within finch population used predict emergence of new species in 200 years!
7) Mere bone fragments and faked hominid skull to prove human descent
For those looking for the youtube video I posted first it is called:
Ravi Zacharias on Atheistic Evolution
"The National Curriculum for science clearly sets down that pupils should be taught that the fossil record is evidence for evolution, and how variation and selection may lead to evolution or extinction."
The b*stards keep insisting the Earth revolves round the sun as well.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:05 am Post subject:
petros wrote:
What people need to realise is that evolution is first and formost a theological objection. It is asumed knowledge about God. The basic premise is 'God would not have created the world like this therefore it must have arisen by natural means'. It was the influence of deism and platonism, which insists God remote and uninvolved in the world, on Darwin that pushed him in this direction. For a more indepth study on this read Darwin's God: Evolution and the problem of Evil by Conelius Hunter. Therefore Evolution is not science and science proves this.
Petros - how can I put this - you're confused, out of your depth, waffling out mangled assertions that convince nobody either that you understand what a theory is, why we have theories, or specifically what the theory of evolution is about.
Relating ethical constructs or concepts to biology is about as misguided as can be (but charlatans love it). _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Darwin's novels in summary made a few basic assertions.
Firstly - life occured as a spontaneous occurance by chance according to what is now known as chaos theory.
In practice for a hundred years now scientists have tried to creat life.
They have put all the various chemicas and substance that liing organisms are made of. EG: water, salt, carbon, calcium, etc in their correct proportions and have tried over and over to make a living cell. Despite so much effort and expense no living cell have ever been created in a test tube.
Second - every living thing is in a struggle for survival with each other, with it's own species, with other species, even with it's own siblings and it is a survival of the fittest at all costs. Natural selection.
But in reality as biologists and zoologists have discovered over and over again that animals are willing to SACRIFICE their lives to save others. To save others amongst their family, from their species and also from other species.
In a group animals will often allow the WEAKEST to eat first. Animals will share food supplies. Look at examples of animals who forego their safety not only to protect their young but also to protect others. There is no training or breeding that creates this instinct. It is part of every animals DNA. Darwin believed that everything was in an eat or be eaten struggle.
Sacrifice is an event amongst animals that totally debunks Darwin.
Kinship amongst animals too debunks Darwin.
Thirdly- Darwin's theory on species evolving into different, better, stronger, faster, more intelligent species. Developing new skills etc.
But their is no fossil records of any transistional species. No eveidence today of any living creature that is in a development phase.
There is no half and half species.
Darwin's story includes a tail of fish crawling out of the seas, becoming amphibians, them reptiles, then mammals, etc. Darwin suggests man developed from monkeys. But in that case why is there no half man half monkey? Even Darwin in his latter years was quoted as saying his theory had failed because he had found NO EVIDENCE of any transistional species.
I have quoted him before in other threads.
The main slam dunk to disprove Darwin has been the discovery of DNA which basically means there is no such thing as evolution. Every living thing has it's own unique DNA which does not evolve.
An ant fossil 1,000,000 years old is exactly the same as an ant today. It's DNA has not changed. Size and shape may vary slightly, but food and climate play a part in this as well. But DNA remains a constant.
The problem with belief in Darwin is this. Hitler was a firm believer, he considered certain races to be inferior and undeserving of life. He even murdered his own cousins who were diabled. He was speeding up what he considered was a process of natural selection.
Lets consider Hitler/Darwin for the moment.
Hitler would happily kill all disabled.
Darwin on the other hand believed that disabled would by themselves become extinct through a process of natural selection.
Hitler was speeding up Darwin's theory.
This is why Darwinism is a truly evil and amoral belief system.
Blacks, Jews, Muslims, Gays, Disabled, Gingers, where do we stop.
In the eyes of God everyone is equal,
Every living thing is equal.
But in the eyes of Darwinists this is not the case. _________________
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 8:57 pm Post subject:
I did have a line by line counter to your hyperbolic and largely nonsensical and mistaken claims, but having already lost it into the ether once, I'll cut to the chase with this attempt.
For all your flowery, anthropomorphic, religio-political (wtf??) and fanciful notions, the objective scientific fact remains that extinction and mutation are commonplace events in the multiplicity of biological processes we know as 'life'.
The theory of evolution (not 'Darwinism' - it's not a belief system) provides a handle for understanding those events within a larger context.
That's all you need to know - maybe it'll inform your understanding somewhat, though I suspect not. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.
…Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me
Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional forms. He hoped that they would be found in the future. Despite his optimism, he realized that these missing intermediate forms were the biggest stumbling-block for his theory. That is why he wrote in the chapter of the The Origin of Species entitled "Difficulties on Theory"
So if Darwin to his credit realised that his theory was horseshit, why dont we? _________________
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 11:21 am Post subject:
stelios wrote:
Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional forms. He hoped that they would be found in the future. Despite his optimism, he realized that these missing intermediate forms were the biggest stumbling-block for his theory. That is why he wrote in the chapter of the The Origin of Species entitled "Difficulties on Theory"
So if Darwin to his credit realised that his theory was horseshit, why dont we?
As far as I'm aware, it's impossible to test the DNA of a fossil, and without that information, the position of an organism on the 'organism development scale' is next to impossible to judge going by external characteristics alone
Yet genetic mutation is a continual and ongoing process - but have you considered that your expectations may be in error?
That is to say for example that humans aren't going to develop 5 fingers and a stub, five fingers and a bigger stub and so on, until eventually there are six fingered people. The genetic coding seems to work away in the background until suddenly a sixth finger appears. Even the notion of a transitional stage is not proven, and certainly not to be universally accepted.
But leaving examples aside, you seem to have difficulties with the concept of 'theory' which is not about establishing the bogus religious/political type 'certainties you seem to admire so much, but providing a working framework to support a developing and progressing understanding onto. It isn't 'The Law of Evolution', which seems to me to be how you are reading the word 'theory'.
In that regard, and leaving simplistic assumptions of how it can be 'expected' to work, far from being 'in crisis', evolution is still the best available model we have.
However, I don't belive you're approaching the subject from a rational scientific point of view at all, and are instead, like the Creationists, using it as a prop for your own brand of religious fervour.
Which, while not to my taste, is cool as long as it's realised that's what you're doing. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 162.
1) There is a big clue there is the words absolutely break down. The coding in the DNA of a single protein molecule, let alone a whole molecule is so complex that the idea that is can be built up by random mutations is absurd.
2) Irreducible complexity, a term coined by Biochemist Michael Behe describes how a for a biological mechanism to function in a beneficial way then all the constituent parts need to be present for the individual parts to have any positive effect. Therefore even the smallest living systems imply design from the outset and not gradual development.
The theory has absolutely broken down.
The book Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe and the film below. Illustrate this further.
So who created the designer? If the response is along the lines of "nobody, because He always existed and is all powerful" then what is your problem in believing in "evolution". Seems a lot less horseshit to believe in evolution. Why believe in either? Just believe the Earth has always existed as have all the creatures in it, or that it just popped into existence from nothing. It is as logical a "theory" as an all powerful, ever present divinity. Or must we not call God belief a "theory"?
So who created the designer? If the response is along the lines of "nobody, because He always existed and is all powerful" then what is your problem in believing in "evolution"
I hoped to stick the scientific and philosophical problems with evolution and it seems that you want to talk about God. Hmmm. But I'm glad to answer.
Your first question is a red herring I'm afraid. A non-question. To ask who created the creator or who designed the designer is missing the point.
The creator is not created by definition.
If there is no creator then the universe is uncreated and impersonal.
How then do you exist? How did you arise unless you are the creator?
The unverse exists and you exist and have a mind that is personal and capable of abstract thought.
Do other minds exist when you interact with them or are they figments of your imagination?
If you can believe in other minds then you can believe in a designer because they have properties that can only be bestowed by a creator and cannot arise from an impersonal uncreated universe.
To answer your other question. My problem with evolution is with the lack of good evidence for it and seeing the lies used to support and also the complexity and beauty of our world pointing to something other than evolution, namely God.
Watch the videos and read the articles that I have posted and see what you think.
As the previous poster correctly states. this topic is NOT a discussion about the designer. It is quite specifically about the collapse of evolution as a viable theory. Evolution is a lie, it has been thoroughly disproven by so many highly educated zoologists and researchers. It has even been rejected by it's founder Charles Darwin who expressed deep misgivings in his latter years.
It is an undisputable fact that there is not a single fossil nor is there a single living species that can be described as a transitional species or a species in the process of evolving.
Evolutionists describe this as the missing link. it is missing because it does not exist despite every effort made to find even one example of a missing link.
The only action any pro evolutionist needs to do to verify their beliefs is to go out there and find evidence for themselves of evolution.
If you find it you will become the most famous scientist on earth and a millionaire.
So once it is accepted that evolution is a lie then we can move on to see what theories may be real.
In the meantime it is wrong for the public to be brainwashed into believing these things. They tell us that man evolved from monkeys and people believe this without a 0.0001% shred of evidence. they tell us than man walked on the moon with only a totally faked black and white short video and a few faked photos to back up the story.
911 and 7/7 are the same things. humans want to believe that is why we are so easily fooled. We trust people, we follow people and we basically abdicate our own thoughts in favour of a relaxed easy quiet life rather than using our own brains.
Think for yourself, evolution is a failed theory. There is no evidence to support it. Meaning it is a matter of faith - the wrong faith. Hitler was an avid follower of Darwin's and look where that got us so it is actually an evil theory and not just a bit of fun.
I know you Blackcat are sensible and probably dont believe in Darwin's theories but others do and we need to wake them up to the reality. _________________
i agree there has been no evidence found in the fossile record etc to prove
evolution as a fact.
but as a theory it still stands. it is still in the list of possibilities.
yes once you realise darwins theory is just that, it frees your mind into looking at other possibilities and realising that its still an open ball game.
but throwing it out just because it has not been proven yet, is a big mistake to make at the same time.
and for those who firmly believe creation, ill just point out darwins theory not being proven as yet dos'nt prove creation correct because of it.
scientists argue evolution or creation, making a big assumption that it can only be one or the other.
untill the answers are found im afraid i have to keep an open mind, and even consider the possibility of it being neither or both.
the reason darwins theory cannot just be thrown out the window like a useless piece of trash is because the evidence could still be out there.
if earths oceans have changed during history from time to time, then parts that are underwater now were habitable back then, and this is where evidence could be.
likewise theres always the possibility of orangisims coming to earth via space rocks, which would mean the evidence is elsewhere for how life began.
the potential for life could be everywhere, dorment waiting for a window of oppertunity, the correct conditions then BOOM.
obviously creation also, either by a god or other beings.
theres many possibilities and there all still in as far as im concerned because nothing thus far has been proven.
But surely we have to act according to facts not speculation.
Example.
Fact we know everyday whe we cook on our stainless steel pans using our gas cookers that fire does not melt steel.
Yet we are asked to forget that known fact and speculate that parafin burning in an oxygen starved fire melted structural steel coated with asbestos.
It is inconcievable yet it is sold to us as fact.
7/7 the cctv evidence may be out there
Diana the tunnel cctv may well exist
but there is no evidence of any one creature living or fossilised which has or is in a state of evolution
Bird Flu scammer Donald rumsfeld wrote:
Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know
ok lets put it another way, 70% of earth is ocean at this present time.
of which around 5% has been explored.
that makes at least 65% of the earth unexplored at least, which gives a very large area where the secret of life could be found if at all.
the other 30% of the earths land mass has not been dug up looking for fossils, i'd guess at the most 2% has been excavated for fossils since the beginning of excavation.
now of that land mass at least 20-30% is desert.
are we going to write of a theory that has not been proven yet but also still has many many places to look for fossils that could provide that evidence of evolution.
the earths oceans have changed a lot over time, all the evidence could now be underneath it, or in areas yet to be excavated.
no there is no living proof but how long have we been looking?
All times are GMT Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Next
Page 1 of 7
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
