REASON ONE: Many Laws of science disprove it.
I could go on and on about this, but I'll just point out a few of the top of my head.
The first being The Second Law of Thermodynamics. Here is how wikipedia descirbes it;
"The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."
Bet that's fun. To summerize that in much smaller simpler terms, this states that things can't get better with time, only worse. For example if you leave your car in the yard for a long time, it can only get rusty and in worse shape. It won't just turn into a nice new energy-effiecent Hummer (irony, I know). So with time things can't get better. This proably dosen't make much sense to most, so I'll continue.
The second law I'll talk about is The Law of Biodiversity. I can't find a small defination, but to summerize it in my own words as best I can understand it, is that;
"Life only comes from life."
It used to be thought that magots came from rotting meat. So this scientist did a study and took two slabs of meat and put them in two seprate jars and only covered the top of one jar. He observed that flies plant maggots into the meat and therefore he concluded that life can only come from life.
Evoultion focuses on life coming from nothing. According to this, it's impossible.
There are more Laws, but for now I'll stop here.
REASON TWO: The Age of Earth
This one is very intresting to me personally, and possibly my favorite agrument. Many scientist say that the Earth is billions of years old, and recently they've said they think it might be even older. This might sound absurd but I think that the world is less than ten-thousand years old.
The first cause for me to belive this is the sun. Did you know that the sun shrinks at an average of five feet every hour? That's not really that big of deal on account that the sun is about one million miles across. This would mean that 100 thousand years ago, life wouldn't have been possible because the sun would be twice it's size. Life on Earth would be impossible at that heat level.
The second cause for me to belive evoultion is false, is the salt in the ocean. According to the Evolutionary theroy life began in the oceans a long time ago. The following is an exerpt from http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/Water/salinity.html&edu=high.
"The oceans sure contain a lot of salt. How did that salt come to be there? It is thought that when the Earth was still young, many of the gases emitted from volcanoes dissolved in the primitive ocean, originally making it salty. Now, one of the main contributors of salt in the ocean is the continual rinsing of the Earth. Rivers, streams and groundwater all flow into the oceans. They carry water and dissolved minerals or salts from the rocks they have washed over. These dissolved salts then get deposited in the ocean. Another great contributor of salts to the ocean comes from the mid-ocean ridges, the areas of sea floor spreading. So, the oceans are getting saltier every day..."
The point is that the oceans get saltier everyday. Right now there is so little salt that we can't even measure it. If the world was so old there would be alot more salt in the ocean.
Everyone knows that the first thing Neil Armstrong said when he steped out onto the moon, was "That's one small step for man, one gaint leap for mankind" but not many know the second thing he said. He made a comment about the dust on the moon. NASA scientist had anticipated the moon being covered in dust, becuase it too should have been really old. They were expecting feet of dust (that's why the landing gear had such long legs) and all they got was a few inches. This shows that thw world couldn't be that old, or at least the moon.
The last point I'll touch on in regards to the moon is that the moon moves away from Earth a certain amount each year. If the world was so old, the moon would be gone. We wouldn't even be able to see it.
REASON THREE: The Geologic Column
On of the Evoultionist's greatest claim of evidence is the Geologic column. The column should show that the further down you dig into sedimentary rock (such as the Grand Canyon), the further down you go the older the contents should be. Here is a picture of the Geolical Column:
Now this is intresting to me too. If this is truly an indicator of age, then why do you find, rather often I might add, things from diffrent time periods in diffrent columns. Like a shoe with a dinosuar for an example (doubt if the found that though). Also what about things like trees? Trees that arent horizontal and actually appear in diffrent layers of the column. Does that mean that a tree started growing and millions of years later, stayed stuck in that sedentary rock until it was covered up? Not possible. It dosen't make sense. Maybe some would argue that this is rare or could have happened from an avalanche or something, but then why are there so many? Just a thought.
Sedimentary rock is substances that have gotten wet and over years dried and left an imprint of what ever was in it. If it was such a long process, why do you find animals in the middle of birth or eating? The only way this would be possible is through a quick process. All the Geolical Column can even argue is that at one time there was a really, really, big flash flood that caused sediments to settle and many plants and animals and creatures to get caught in it. Not evoultion.
REASON FOUR: Missing Links
If the Evolutionary Theroy is correct, then why do we have so many missing links? Where are all the transitional beings (for lack of a better word)? If it takes millions of years for something to change, say a fish come out of water, then millions of millions of millions of dead fish would be everywhere. As you walk out to your car you'd trip over the body of one these transitionals. You would be able to go dig in the back yard and find the remains of all these dead creatures. It dosen't add up at all. If you've seen the movie Evolution, note the scene where they go into a gaint field and see dead dragon looking things all over the place. That's how it would be.
Another fact in the missing links would be that evolution is said to happen because of mutations and such. In this case, what about the fact that mutatated animals are sterile and can't reproduce. What explains that?
REASON FIVE: What about those things that show evolution has occured?
In this I'm meaning things like whales that have that little bone that sticks out. Evolutionist say this shows that the whale use to have legs or something. That part is need for whales to reproduce. If you haven't noticed whales are a little big and can't exatly just "hook up." They have to be able to hold on, and the only way to do this would be this supposed not important part.
What about people that have tails? On this I don't know. I don't think it shows that we once had tails. I think it's just a very rare abnormality like albinos or other birth effects.
Also what about the things they found that show human evolution like Lucy? For this I have this chart that I found very intresting.
Agian, it dosen't add up.
REASON SIX: Why haven't we seen any recent evolution?
One could argue that they've found two headed frogs and such, but why aren't humans becomeing diffrent? Personally I think I'd be awesome to have mutant skills as in X-Men, but why hasn't anything happened in humans in the last 8,000 years?
There just hasn't been any suggestion of recent evolution and there theroitically should be. Evoultion just doesn't add up.
I have heard that the reason we haven't evolved recently is because we use tools. But so did our purposed ancestors. Our "Evolutionary Cousins" the apes, use tools to get ants out of ant hives, to make sound, and all kinds of things. Just because we are so relaxed and lazy today, dosen't mean we wouldn't change according to the theroy.
So I have gone through the basics of why there is no way Evolution could be true. I didn't even scatch the tip of the iceberg. There is so much information out there, that I can't even start to explain. I encourage you to look, and decide for yourself. Feel free to debate me, or to disagree with me, draw your own conclusions. By the way check out the movie Expelled when it comes out. It talks alot on this stuff.
Posts
76 comments:
Devils pacifier says
you do realize that anyone could write anything that want in the wiki
it could say we evolved from tartar sauce ,or the hulk.
i think god confounds the truth on purpose.
if we really evolved from apes why are they still here?
Where did wikipedia come into this? Oh yeah, I shouldn't have quoted it. I was just looking for something fast to explain what it was in scientific terms.
Well... I can disproof all your reasons. Please excuse any mistakes because English is not my 1st language.
REASON ONE:
2nd law of thermodynamics: If life evolves, its DNA becomes more 'messy', its shape more complex, and as such increases entropy.
Law of biodiversity: Well, that's first problem. Only good explanation is that, that only primeval environment is good for developing life. Some 'life aura' is also required. And because we haven't discovered this 'life aura' yet, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist!
REASON TWO:
Sun is NOT shrinking. Scientists once thought so because they measured Sun's diameter from Mercury's orbit, but because of Einstein's laws Mercury's orbit changes through relatively short amounts of time. Read more on http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i2/sun.asp. Sun should in fact be expanding because of increasing amount of energy it produces.
Seas also desalinify. One of the proofs is thick salt layer at the bottom of Mediterranean sea. Also, Earth cannot have unlimited amounts of salt, just as you can't get unlimited amount of, let's say, iron, from one mine.
Well, about the dust you can read on http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html. Dust does not land on space objects THAT fast. NASA made a wrong calculation.
REASON THREE:
Did anyone say that all sedimentary rocks took millions of years to form? Some might also be formed very quickly, if there are good conditions. For example, on commonly flooded terrain.
REASON FOUR:
The treason why we don't have missing links is because we don't find very much fossils, but sometimes only two or three of one species. Also, if one kind of animals is very functional, it doesn't need to evolve. And if it's so good, then it expands!! So, a species that evolve (need missing links) are very rare and as such we find only one or two fossils from whole million years of evolution.
REASON FIVE:
Lusy is NOT ancestor of human, because human developed from spacefaring species that had a space-shipwreck and are named Homo erectus. That's only good explanation of many differences between the Erectus and other hominids before it. And if you are creationist, you must feel sense in this explanation (humanoids are only good form, because God created us from His form (dunno the English version)).
REASON SIX:
There has been evolution recently. Like the 'blue eyes mutation', and the reason why Afroamericans are in genome that much different from Africans.
I hope you could read the text, although my English is bad.
Well your English is really good. English is my first langauge and I'm still bad at it. You do make some very good points. I am impressed that you did the research and you did a really good job.
Let me clairfy while I do personally belief in the existance of God, and as God as the creator of life, this blog wasn't meant to reflect or try to prove there is a God. It was just meant to question Evoultion.
In regards to those points here I go:
REASON ONE:
Still though if you make a mess what are the chances of making a complex masterpiece. It's still highly unlikely to happen even if the right circumstances are there.
There was something going around that if 1,000,000,000 monkeys typed randomly on typewrites, one of them would type a Shakespear sonnet.
Also if you walking along a side walk and found ten leaves lined up form an arow, you wouldn't think that they fell of a tree and just landed there. You would know that someone had to have put them there.
Regarding the Law of Biodiversity, again even if the conditions are right if there is no life at all, new life can't just logically or magically appear. I think the "life aura" you're talking about is called the cosmic egg for us. I think it's suppose to be the source of everything. Then though, where does the comsmic egg (or life aura) come from? To be fair where would a creator come from? Unless that creator made everything including matter and mass from nothing. Perhaps that's why it is impossible to think about nothing. You can imagine nothing, but you can't picture it in your mind. It would be air, or an empty box, or pure light. We can't really comperhend that idea.
REASON TWO:
Well I went to site about the sun and I don't think the right page came up.
I really don't have anyway to defend that, it's honestly something I heard and made a note on.
Same thing with the salt.
And with the dust I wouldn't be able to say anything on that either.
Honestly I don't know enough about these things. I know enough to make an argument but that's about it.
With all those calculations though, like the moon for instance.
They calculated because of theroy at first. But once they had the true information about the dust, it could be innfered that could mean that any other theroies about dust on the moon was baised after that.
Could be, but I really don't know enough to say.
REASON THREE
No, but they said the Geoloical Column did, and it is essientailly made out of sedimentary rocks. Even so, why do they find fossils of fish on top of Mount Everest? Plus, why do they find things that should be in one Geoloical Period in other Geological Periods?
REASON FOUR
See we should be able to find those transtional beings everywhere we did though. In every bit of ancient ice, or mountianside you should be able to find hundreds of millions of transtional creatures. You don't though.
So then are Homo Sapian Sapians the top of the Evoultionary chain? Something should still be changeing. Even if it's not human. Something could always be better than what it is. Wiether it's breathing underwater flying.
REASON FIVE
Are you saying now, that we are evolved from space aliens? If science is trying to now explain the orgin of life with life from planets, then that shows that there are holes in the theory right there. That sounds like a movie. Actually, that was a movie. When science mixes with science-fiction, how far are we meant to follow?
REASON SIX:
This is the only thing I have trouble following what you're talking about.
What about blue eyes?
Are you saying that there is a diffrence better actaul born in Africa, Africans, and what we call African Americans, who's skin color is black?
I don't understand what you mean by a diffrence in that. Plus diffrences between the two could be from weather, climate, environment, dieseases, food source, and years and years of breeding. Alot of things could change. After enough generations, it's possible for a white man to be a descent of a black man.
All I was simply trying to do, was say that there are alot of holes in evolution. You can't deny that are. I just don't understand how anything with this many holes could hold up like it has. Theories, laws, and formulas, are all based on evoultion as fact, This, as in the dust on the moon levels, could prove to cause some bias information to be passed on.
I hope this made sense.
Im not going to argue about creation - i dont have proof and neither do you.
I do have a problem with your idea the sun is getting smaller at a standard rate - if such measurements were made 10,000 years ago at the beginning of your universe then id believe it. It is likely to be decreasing in size at an increasing rate because as enrgy is transferred into mass the gravity increases, density increases and volume decreases.
Measure it in a thousand years and then ill believe it. You cant base a theory about change over thousands of years on measurements at over ten or twenty years.
P.S ill belive about fish on Mt. Everest when i see the photo!
Firstly, once again, I didn't right this to debate Creationism, only Evoultion. I guess you could argue the two go hand in hand but hey. So one more time, I was just pointing out that evolution has holes and therefore is not a perfect theory or science. I don't understand why we can base all scientifc knowledge around something that has holes in it. That's all.
Okay, first with Mr. Davy Jones (Awesome name by the way, and I'm guessing you are also Dave?), the whole thing with the sun is not my theory. I'm just a nerd that remembers lots of satistics. That particular satistic I did get from a creation scientist that came to my church. While, I got it from there, there are many online sources that agree, while there are other sources that do not agree. I'm not sure how they based it, but I'm pretty sure it's more than over the last twenty years. I guess there would be no way to tell unless you go back 1000years, but seeing as we can't exactly do that there isn't currently anway to tell. I don't know the science behind it, but all I can say is google it, and defer for yourself.
To Dave (who I think is also Davy Jones) with the fish fossil on Mount Everest, even Evolutionist believe that there was water above Mount Everest. Again you can google it and find alot of stuff on it.
While you're checking that out though look up dinosaurs found in modern times. Heck this might sound dumb, but a few years back some Japanese fish boat found a dead dinosuar in one of their nets. Nothing to do with evolution I just think it's freaking awesome.
Now if your more intrested on the subject of evolution/creationism/flood here are links to two websites. One is a creationist website (http://www.calvaryag.org/apologetics/apologetics_11-evidence_flood.htm) and the other is an argument that somewhat tells both sides, but mostly favors evolution (http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/noahs_flood.htm).
So if you check them out, you can let me know what you think or what not.
there is no god and you are mental.
www.godisimaginary.com
Ryan, Ryan, Ryan, name calling? Really? Come on.
People I really getting tired of explaining that this blog is not about God or creation. All it is is pointing out that there are holes in the evolutionary theroy. How that makes me mental, I don't know.
Okay Ryan, godisimaginary.com. It's not the first time I've seen this site and probly won't be the last. You know I always hate it whenever someone will bring something up and then the person trying to anwser will defelct or change the subject. So I will try my hardest not to do that.
So this website brings up a bunch of diffrent points such as there is no god, no way to prove there is a god, all Christians are delusional, prayer is useless, and the reason god want heal amputess is because he simply dosen't exist.
Okay, I'm going to say this, and you can disagree with me all you want. God, even if you don't belive in Him, is supernautral. Here me out. Supernautral is anything that we can't see or isn't scientific proven. The fact is that you really can't prove God with logic. Being supernatural, that would make God unexplainable. What I'm trying to say is that you can't just put God in a box. We get this picture of what we think God is and then we stick to it. No one really knows how awesome God actually is.
Now with that, you could say that logic is above supernatural because logic is law. So therefore this shows there isn't a god. Does it? If God is supernatural however, that would mean that logic dosen't apply. For example, there are crops that get attacked by insects. These crops are somehow able to excret this chemical to attract other animals, that will kill the insects. Do we have any idea what causes this or how the heck that could happen? No, we don't. It's supernautral, one of those things, that we'll never understand.
Prayer. God Anwsers Prayers. GAP. Pretty much everyone in the world has prayed before. A kid about to take a test, a woman who has just been diagnosed with cancer, or anyone who has ever been in a situation where they feel stressed, angry, or overwhelmed. Even those who don't belive in God, have at one point or another called on Him.
So with prayer, people tend to say that God anwsers in Yes, No, or Wait. I disagree. If we are to belive in God, why limit him to three anwsers? He's not a magic eight ball, though if one dosen't believe in God they could agrue that the eight ball has the same ratio of success and fail. If God did create us, then we would assume that He would take an intrest in us. Do we see that? Maybe, maybe not. What does one call a mircle. On the other hand, how do you know that God is talking to you? The point is that right now we might not see it. We might not understand why we are the way we are. We might wonder if there is a god out there, what the heck is he waiting for? I can't anwser those questions. Or I can and someone will just come up from behind me and give me a million reasons why I'm wrong on something.
So what I will offer for now, is that the only true way to know if there is a god or not, is first hand. You have to experience it for yourself. You have to look and poke the holes, and actually let God take the wheel. It sounds corny. Stupid maybe. The only way to prove to you, logically speaking, that God exists is for you to take the incitive and let God work in your life. Don't just write Him off as some creation to get money from your pocket, or as something to just explain the world around us, or as a crutch.
God is bigger than any of all that, and if you are trully willing, trully accepting, then maybe you'll start to notice things. Connect the dots. Make conclusions for yourself.
Let me explain why I cannot deny God.
We'll I wish I could say that I had a bad addiction to drugs and God helped me get through it but I can't. (Maybe that's a good thing) I have always been brought up in a Christian home as long as I can remember. I did have alot of health anomalies. I wasn't even suppose to be born on account of my mom having this medical problem in which the chances of the Rays winning the World series were better (this being before the team exisited, so by doctor's conclusions impossible). Yet I was. Then I got really, really sick before I can even remember. The doctors said my chances were slim. Accourding to my dad some guys from a local church came by with oils and prayed over me and pored oil on me. (Let it be known that my parents didn't know much about God then, let alone go to church) I made a full blown recovery in record time. I wasn't suppose to survive. But I did. The doctors said I would never be able to be as active as other kids were snd wouldn't be able to play sports. I run cross-country, possibly one of the most demanded sports ever. Then in Second grade I suddenly started going the bathroom alot and drinking tons of water. After about a year of dodcter hop-scotch they found out their was a growth in my brain. Now I remember watching a show on the power of prayer so I prayed that everything would be okay. Soon after that I was diaognosied with a condition that all I have to do is take medicine to control. I have been extremly blessed.
Could all this be luck? It could. But there are so many other instances. In daily life, a feeling of comfort in a storm. A smile from a stranger that brightens your day. A memory that keeps you going. You can see God everywhere. You just have to look.
So Ryan. I hope I wrote this in a way that make sense. Reason can deny logic, logic can deny reason, sometimes the two will work, and sometimes they won't. You have to decide on your own, what you belive. If you think God is imaginary, okay. But at least give him the chance to work in your life or back in your life.
Once again. THIS BLOG IS ONLY SAYING THAT EVOLUTION HAS HOLES IN IT. THIS BLOG WASN'T MADE TO DEBATE THEOLOGY BUT EVOLUTION.
So please try to stick to that topic.
idiot, 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies to a closed system... the universe is an open system
Idiot? Look, quit with the name calling! I mean can't we all pretend to be adults?
Why is it that the only thing people seem to comment on is this blog? Geez, it was just me getting out frustration on my science class.
Okay, Mr. Name Caller guy.
Firstly I love how you stated that the Second Law of Thermodynamics being applied only to a closed system as if it was common knowledge. I just find that funny.
Or you could just be indicating that I don't know a what I'm talking about and just made up something?
Let it be noted that it was already established that I am indeed an idiot and really don't know much about science, mostly because I have a life. However I know enough to know what I'm talking about. So don't patronize me.
Now, the 2nd law of thermodynamics: Physicist Lord Kelvin stated it technically as follows: "There is no natural process the only result of which is to cool a heat reservoir and do external work." In more understandable terms, this law observes the fact that the useable energy in the universe is becoming less and less. Ultimately there would be no available energy left. Stemming from this fact we find that the most probable state for any natural system is one of disorder. All natural systems degenerate when left to themselves.
All that information came from Lord Kelvin as quoted in A.W. Smith and J.N. Cooper, Elements of Physics, 8th edition (New York, New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing, 1972), p. 241. So if anything said was wrong take it up with the guy who said it and has a freak'n PHD.
So ALL NATURAL SYSTEMS degenerate when left to themselves. Nature dosen't get better on its own. It can only get worse over time. It's why you have to weed out a garden or till a land to start a farm.
Nature just dosen't get better on it's own. It dosen't make sense, logically or otherwise.
You say the universe is an open system but what the heck does that have to do with anything?
There is no way that life randomly improved magically overtime. That's all I was saying when I brought up the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Nothing about the universe.
Now, if anyone else has anything to say, please present it logically and back up your information. AND NO NAME CALLING. That's lame and I'm sure you don't want your mom checking your history and finding out that you were on some loser's blog calling them names.
Thanks Champ.
I can agree with you. I have raised the same questions when reading and analyzing "Evolution". One person said that "Blue eyes was a sign of evolution" This of course is not a sign of evolution but of adaption plants, animals, and people adapt to there environment. Which one can look out there front door to see. What hasn't been seen is Evolution. If we in fact came from monkeys why do monkeys still exist? Why are there no Neanderthal men walking around? Why do we still have the same plants and animals we always had? Because Evolution is not true. It would be impossible. For two reasons. One: NO ONE GETS EXTRA DNA STRAINS! Who in all history of DNA research has found someone with 25 chromosomes. NO ONE. This would have too happen if evolution was indeed a fact. Your DNA is controlled by your RNA. Animals and people aren't even close to having the same RNA(this includes monkeys) Two: EVOLUTION WOULD NOT STOP. Ok people lets use some basic common sense here. Even if it takes millions of years for something to completely evolve there would be some kinds of signs and or changes. Just like the monkey didn't just turn human after 10 million years; it was a process that had stages. So how could evolution be true when plants, animals, and people are still at the same stage since man has been in existence.
If you don't believe in GOD that is your choice to do what you will. But pleas don't try and say you don't believe in him because of this bull$hit theory that my 2 year old niece can see isn't true. Because even if this theory was true it still doesn't disprove the bible, and it doesn't mean there is no God.
Thank you Ranyesha. After so many comments calling me an idiot it's a nice change. Great points. I've heard some agruments saying that human evoultion is in the tools we make and use. Personally I think this is Bull too, but I may be a bit bias.
Again thanks for the comment, really appraite it.
@ranyesha concerning chromosome number:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/basics_how_can_chromosome_numb.php
As for why an ancestor to a species evolved from something will still be here: the original species does not disappear. Evolution != Transformism. There are various ways speciation can occur, such as the geographical isolation of one portion of a species from the rest.
As changes propagate through one isolated population to the point where enough differences exist so as to make mating between the two populations unlikely even in the event of the two populations physically overlapping again. Thus, the two no longer interbreed and changes that propagate in one population do not affect the other, making them able to change with respect to each other despite a common ancestor.
Now where to begin... lets start with the evolution of hominins (formerly hominids) Lucy was an ancestor of ours, Lucy was an australopithecine. The australopiths (there were a few species of course) these were bipedal apes (walked on 2 legs) and our dear old Lucy is around 3.5ma (million years)old, this age has been checked with a variety of dating methods, argon-potassium ranging, argon-argon, so give or take a 100,000 years the date is correct. This ALONE shows the earth is much older than this fossil, hence the earth is many billions of years older, 4.2b roughly. Now our old gal Lucy wasn't the brightest spark or the biggest and with big predators who would love to eat her running around something had to give. Bring forth evolution, or "Punctuated Equilibrium" the modern day twist of Darwin's theory. Essentially the same but instead of a slow crawl in evolution there can be a mutation (not all mutations are sterile by the by) when that mutation is a benefit nature in all its wonderful wisdom keeps that trait. Move on a few million years and ta-da Lucy is no longer around instead the globe is covered with 3 types of hairless (mostly) bipedal apes called Homo Erectus, Homo Sapiens & Homo Neanderthalensis. Now I hear you shout from behind the pulpit "ah ha why are they not around now? Why aren't the supposed beasts in between around? and why damn it why are the apes still here???". Well mostly easy to answer because they all fall under the same reasoning, the reason the apes (and of course our closest genetic cousin chimps) are still here is because they stayed in the trees. We, our ancestors, got up and strolled around therefore we no longer had to compete for the same food or dwellings. Which explains why the 'in-betweeners' arent here because once a new and improved version arrived and mated passing on the new mutated beneficial trait, this new breed was more suited to its environment and got the food leaving leaving the unsuccessful older versions to die. This is why we now have only sapien sapiens around... almost the Neanderthals had bigger brains, a physically stronger body and social structure we would recognise today. Why they disappeared is a debate but the fact is the existed tens of thousands of years ago, long before old Mr Usher dated the world at beginning just before 4000BC (he did a good job researching it but just didn't have all the facts) now however in a world with the technology to date things millions of years ago, to think in abstract ways and create theories and be able to proved them, and evolve a society that numbers over 6.5 billion whilst creating technology and medicine to stave of death, drugs to eradicate diseases that plagued man from prehistory, and to do that all and still take the time to look good. Well I for one can't see how evolution has ever stopped.
Oh and also God and evolution well I do love to hear people like Ranyesha with this bull$hit theory that my 2 year old niece can see isn't true. Because even if this theory was true it still doesn't disprove the bible, and it doesn't mean there is no God. Well you've got a pretty damn smart 2 year old because you haven't understood the theory (scientific gesture its a fact). But the good old cop out of pouting and well even if it is true its doesn't mean there is no God. Even though the reason I believe in him is because of the bible, and even if the bible has lied about how people came about well it MUST be telling the truth about everything else. Come on if the bible was in court on the witness stand and they judge caught it lying, BOOM, no credibility, bible you may leave the building. Why can people not understand a world were a sky god doesn't rule everything. Does it take away the excuse when something bad happens that it was the devils work? Or is it the hope that in a galaxy far far away everything will be all alright?
Again, I do have other blogs. I guess they're all kind of boring and not really opinionated though...
Thank you for the comments anonymous person and gerard. This is the kind of debating been trying to get at. So thanks for not just calling me an idiot and stating your case.
First to anonymous.
With the whole things that evolve are still here thing. I keep trying to point this out, but again what about all the transitional species? They should still be here shouldn't they? In excess too. There would have to be so many diffrent kinds that we wouldn't be able to ignore them because we would litaritly be able to dig a hole anywhere in our backyard and find some. All I'm asking is why don't we?
You mentioned mating between two populations. Please correct me if I'm wrong but evolutionary species are mutated aren't they? It's just a bunch of mutated things over time that cause a whole new species. Creatures that have mutations are sterile and can't reduce. I don't exactly know how to prove that, it's just something I learned from my biology class. Granted you could say evolution is diffrent from mutation, but could you explain how?
That was a little off topic sorry. I can follow what your saying about them not breeding with their old style of species, but then why don't we still say human evolution? Are we that far off that we don't need to evolve anymore?
So our evolutionary cousins are suppose to be the ape right? That's the closest thing to a hominoid. Why did they need to evolve? They're strong, resourceful, smart, and can live life fine. They wouldn't have needed to evolve. There would be no point as we aren't that diffrent. Except that we can fully reason. Is that one of those things brought by evolution? To have a soul?
Thanks agian for the comment.
Okay, now to gerard.
Like I showed in the blog though most agree that Lucy was just the fossilized reamains of a chimp.
With the ageing ideas. They're based on theories themselves. Such as, how far things move apart every year and such. They say that this is older and should have been around this such and such time period, and so they based information around that. Or this is a year old. I know that, so if I can test this to say one year then it should be able to tell me on average how old something is 20 years old. It could be called be biased because really there isn't anyway of saying exatly how old the Earth is unless you were to physically go back in time.
If Lucy isn't our great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great (I'm stoping now, because by this point you should get the idea) something or another, then this whole theory is shot.
That theory about evolution taking a leap is what X-Men based on. Not realated, I'm just a nerd and thought I'd point that out.
You addressed the sterile issue. Even if say one out of twenty weren't sterile, and they somehow manged to mate with another non-sterile of the same speices, chances are their kids would be sterile. Wouldn't it be slim to nothing that things would randomly evolove the same way too?
You point out that nature does that "wonderful wisdom" thing and allows things to keep a trait. That's almost like saying nature is its own enitity.
I have heard some people say that evolution could have been caused by God. I don't think this is true, because I think that the Bible would have said it. Anyways back on topic.
The chart in the blog goes through everyone of those found fossils/skelletons of which we're said to have come from. Just look at that. All of it can be debunked, and if there is room for error, there is room for the whole theory to be flawed.
That comment about "ah ha why are they not around now? Why aren't the supposed beasts in between around? and why damn it why are the apes still here???". It is normally said by those who haven't really looking into evolution that hard. I've said before myself. However, refer to what I tried to say to the anonymous poster about this. It makes no sense that they would need to evolve in the first place, if we haven't. There would still be signs of more of them. Maybe a few aren't sterile. But what about the greater amount that are? What about fishes going from water to land? First fish tries to swim on land, can't get on it, dies. Second fish has legs, gets on land, dies because they can't breathe. Third tries to get on land but drowns at birth in the water. You can't be born with lungs as a fish. Maybe there are some certain kinds that can go from water to land (Mud Puppies?), big deal. That's only a few types of fish. And there are bettles that can shoot out fire, where the heck is that in evolution?
Not familar with the Mr. Usher refrence. Even we don't have all the facts. Everything is still just a random crackpot theroy.
Humans, have been here thousands of years. Why haven't we changed? And don't say adaptation counts as evolution. Like people on Mt. Everest having bigger lung capacity.
You're talking about inventions and modern technology as evolution? We haven't changed. Smarter yeah, but that's gained knowledge over time, not evolution over time. Most of these inventions and ideas were happy accidents. It's like that thing about having a millions monkeys randomly type on a computer and supposably typing Shakespear.
On to your second comment...
Again please try to keep this as non opinioned as possible. Oh heck, it's a blog so who cares?
Well, since people have been swearing on the Bible in courtrooms for years, I think the judge would show discreasion. Anyways, the Bible dosen't lie about anything. The Bible is a book written by men, who were inspired by God. That's what we've always been brought to belive.
Now I could go into the fact that like 75%+ of the Bible has been proved and autenticated but I'll spare that. (Though it has. The Bible is actually what history books used to be based on, and then they did archelogy and found that these things were true by other means. For example they actually found what seems to be a gaint boat (ie. and ark) on the top of a mountain.)
You can't just pick apart the Bible without pick apart evolution. Do you know how many holes are in this theory? That's why I started this blog, to point them out. So evolution wouldn't be able to hold up in even a backyard disscusion. Yet it does. Why? No consequences, no conscience, and a get out of jail free card. People are so desperate for trying to prove that they don't need anyone or anything they'll belive anything. Or they just don't want to belive.
I hate it when people blame the devil for everything. Yes bad stuff happens. Do we know why? No. Could some things be caused by the devil? Yes. Could they be signs of the end times? Possibly. If you believe in God, you pretty much have to belive in the devil. It's like light and dark, as if one can exist without the other. Unless one overpowers the other.
It's hard to say anyway you put it.
Is that a StarWars refrence?
The best eviedence for God, is to try Him. Sounds strange. Just trying being open to the idea that he does exist and cares for you, and only wants the best for you. No this isn't some lame Barney moment. This is a real love story calling out to you.
What's the worst that could happen? Nothing?
I believe that evolution is a fact. For someone to say that evolution is just a theory is saying that in layman's terms. A theory has been tested, and therefore gained validity in the scientific world. And whether one wants to admit this or not, evolution is called into question by religious people because it "doesn't fit" with their beliefs. This also happened when Galileo proved that the world was round and revolved around the sun. He was put on house arrest for the rest of his life for questioning the church. Thank goodness that this doesn't happen anymore.
Evolution can "fit" even if one is religious. How this can happen is that Adam and Eve had Cain and Able. Cain killed Able and went to the Land of Nod, where there were people. How can there be people in the land of Nod if Adam and Eve were the first humans ever? Because Adam and Eve were a step in the evolutionary cycle, and they were the first humans as they are today. Who is to say that "God" didn't guide evolution, and that it is His great idea? Does this make one feel more comfortable with accepting this theory?
Okay firstly your information is askew, Lucy IS accepted (even by the religious) as being NOT a chimp, her hips and trunk are adapted to bipedal walking, proven by the shape of her pelvis, the angle the femur attaches to the hip shows Lucy and her ilk walked upright just like us. Now dating, we'll use radiocarbon dating or 14c as its the amount of the carbon isotope 14 left in a sample that determines its age. 14c has a half life (the amount of time it takes half of it to disappear) of 5730 years, now this technique is the same for other methods of dating eg argon/potassium which is used to give us longer dating ranges as different isotopes have different half lives. Now its not fool proof as some people are fools and mess the testing process up, this usually give us earlier dates not longer. So you see dating is verified and so is Lucy, also we know there is an ozone layer yet we don't have to be swimming in it with the best eyes and see each molecule to know its there same as travelling back in time not necessary. X-men is based on evolution but then again the matrix is based on the real world, its just entertainment heightened ideas for entertaining us big old great apes. Chimps are actually our closest relatives not apes, we are part of the greater ape family but we diverged from that lineage long before we split from chimps. As for monkeys and Shakespear, nope sorry monkeys are quite a bit away from us genetically and don't have the intelligence, chimps, again, have a vocabulary of around 400 words(in chimp) which is what you would need to read/write a tabloid (here in Britain). Gained knowledge allows evolution, the main part of evolution isn't the body shape, most archaic humans had pretty similar shape, Neanderthals had short limbs wide barrel chested like the Eskimos as it allows less heat dispersal, Erectus on the other hand had long limbs narrower chests to allows more heat loss, like goat herders in North Africa today, when the body changes for specific environmental uses that is evolution as that trait will be passed on. "Maybe there are some certain kinds that can go from water to land (Mud Puppies?), big deal." you have just said that there are species that can do things that your belief system doesn't allow and you dismiss them totally with "big Deal"? Plus evolution doesn't happen in a couple of steps the world had billions of years to perfect it. Also I forgot last post the "life comes from life" theory check out the Miller/Urey amino acids experiment, totally proved that wrong, really interesting stuff. Usher is the bishop who made a timeline of events in the bible and gave the world its age, good work but oh so wrong. As for the bible being used in court, well not if youre in Tibet, or Bangladesh, or any one of the numerous non Christian countries. In fact according to the American founding fathers it shouldnt be used in the good ol' U S of A. I like the founding fathers not shy about separating God and State. As for the bible being 75% correct sorry that is totally wrong, yes of course there are many many historical figures in there but any good writer can do that, look at Bill and Ted's excellent adventure. The ark on a mountain was a spoof not real in the slightest, Goliath well that's a crane here in Belfast not a giant old David smote. As for the chart unfortunately as you can see its been written from a biblical stance and all of it can't be disproved Pilttown man was faked for fame, money etc, as it shows the mandible was from an orangutan the top from a human. As for a lack of belief, it's not that I lack belief I have mass amounts of belief but my belief in in facts, the solid provable points of science. The bible (all religion actually but using the bible as its what ive been around most) is totally dubious in origins and composition. Written by men AFTER the fact, edited for the best bits and to ensure certain views were left out, all those other writers shunned? Then acts in the bible are now not real events but metaphors? this from all the major churches, of course there are fundamentalists but we see what that brings when mixed with religion. No evolution is a solid fact the beauty is more fossils will turn up and add more proof to the debate, which isn't did it happen but the fine details of how. As for the scientific facts I study human evolution with Professors who are world renown experts in their fields. Check out scientific sites such as http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/default.htm it'll give you fact based evidence not church based
Whoa. You guys are the first to comment back again. Good on you. Very good points both of you, most likely won't adress each thing, but I will try. Point it out if I don't. I know I won't be able to sway your guy's opinion, but I will put up for my beliefs in evolution not being true and in God.
Anonymous, evolution is still called the Evolutionary Therory. It can't be authintacated because no one has been able to see this mass change over time. Again, would need to travel through time. Therefore since it can't be proven, it is still just a theory. Now one could say you can't scientificly prove there is a god. I would pretty much have to agree with you. It is hard to prove God scientifically because God can't be physically be seen or heard. At least not since the Bible itself. But this may sound stupid or not make a lick of sense but you can feel God. Not like, "Dude, that's that awesome
G feeling" or soemthing like that. It's comfort in times of loss or love when you want to hate. I know that dosen't make sense, but it's that feeling or that occasion when you can't deny the existence of God.
That's why I keep argueing/debating, because I have had these moments or experiences. I don't even consider myself "religous" but I know that God is real. And he cares.
WAY OFF TOPIC THERE THOUGH
or maybe on topic?
Okay, again to beat a dead mule, so there is no way to test evolution, at all. And a theory is a hypothesis, well not even that because that can be tested. It's a theroy based upon Darwin's Natural Selection.
I'm not holding back when I say 100% I disagree with evolution because of my beliefs. I also questions everything, that's one of my strange habits. I have done research, talked with scientists, and read bunches of books on the subject. From all that I have seen. Evolution has holes. That's all I was pointing out in the first place.
The church is crazy. Escpecailly in the time of Galileo. People didn't want anyone questioning their beliefs. That's why that happened. It could also be said that that's why Jesus Christ was cruciefied in the first place. Or why people feel uncomfortable about me speaking about evolution as if it's the fantasy possiblity. With Galileo, there really isn't anything I can say about it. People are stupid, and don't like change ecspecailly Christians. God dosen't need our tithe, denomination, or best Sunday suite. God just offers us to come to Him, we don't have to earn that.
Agian off topic.
Thank God that dosen't happen but I can guarentee you it will happen again. It will most likely be the other way around though.
You can make anything "fit" anything. Like the Catholics added a God element to Beowulf to make it fit their ideals.
You know I have asked that question alot and the anwsers I get always seem to vary. I didn't understand how he just was cursed by God and then went off and started his own city. I've heard lots; from Cain mating with fallen angels to mating with monkeys. Maybe this was so many years down the line, that Adam and Eve had loads of kids. You're going from two people to 4.2 billion. There was bound to be insest somewhere along the line. All we can do is speculate and make our own conjuctions. I think I just used the wrong word for what I meant but I think you get the point.
We could say that God guided evolution. I disagree because the Bible says 7 days. Some say that could be a lot of time in God's time. But the Bible was written by man, to be understood by man. So I say nay.
Yeah the reason people belive that is because it makes them more comfortable. But who are they lying to? The world as far as beliefs? Or themselves? They're compromising their originally beliefs.
So anonymous that's all I got on this. Thanks for writing.
Now to Gerard. This is going to take a while...
You're from Britian? Lucky. To be some place so rich with history and culture. Sorry, I'm a nerd like that. I want to make it to Europe someday.
Off topic again...
Lucy. I have no way of going agaisnt what you're saying short of just randomly googleing (googling?) something. She may have been real, but does that make her one of our early precursors? Not neccarirly. We find diffrent types of animals all the time. That's a lame comeback I know, but I'm not a scientist. Maybe that means I should keep my mouth shut but hey. It adds spunkyness.
I haven't seen it accepted by Christians unless they believe evolution but just because it is dosen't make it our ancestor.
Can't really argue with you on the dating thing either. All I can say again is that it is not nessiacirly accurate. It's based on speculation. Scintific speculation granted, but still room for error.
Now again, I'll point this out, the world could be old. I don't think it is, but I'm just a lone 18year old. All I can keep saying is the same thing over again. Half life still don't nessacirly prove anything. How do we know that it takes 5730 years? There isn't a one hundred percent full proof way of proving that. There isn't anything else I can say on this.
I don't care what it's based on, X-men is awesome. I'm a big Marvel fan. Again, I'm a nerd.
Not to bring this up, but I've heard from my college world lit. teacher that the Matrix is just a big Christ allegory. I guess I could see it.
Sorry I should have used Chimps in my example instead. They'd have the same meaning.
All I can say again and again is that I disagree.
Monkeys typing randomly had nothing to do with it. They say that a bunch of monkeys typing randomly would accidently type Shakespear. I was just trying to make a point.
How do you know so much about chimps?
But gained knoweldge isn't evolution. Are you calling modern changes or modern machinary forms of evolution?
But why were these supposed ancestors diffrent or any less intellegent?
We haven't gotten smarter. Yeah we know things they didn't, but Einstein dropped back in Medevil Europe wouldn't be any smarter then the a smart person of their time. Well, he might because it's Einstein. I'm just saying, we aren't smarter, we just know more. I guess that does make us smarter though... But not because our minds have changed to hold more and such.
You sly dog. You quoted me.
"Maybe there are some certain kinds that can go from water to land (Mud Puppies?), big deal."
Well all I was trying to do here was acknowedge that there are very few animals that can actually do that. But they do exist and it would be ignorant for me to just ignore them. What I was saying is that there should be more. LOTS AND LOTS more. Again and again I repeat myself but these are just certain types of animals not transitional ones. I'm indicating Mud puppies (at least I think that's what it's called). Yes, you could say this totally proves what you're saying but again what about all the other transitional species. My beleif system? Makeing it sould like I'm the only one. I'm am one of the biggest doubters of them all. I question everything I believe. That's why I write blogs like this one and read all kinds of books on everything. So I know when I'm face with a doubt I can usally confront it.
Heck, don't they say that whales started on land then evolvoed back into the water? Why would they go back? Whales also have some bone they say shows that they once had some sort of spinal tale or something. What they leave out from this is that the bone surves to help whales hold on when they "get it on" as the kids today say. Off topic again...
Did you message as anonymous? Sorry just something you wrote that was similar.
But evolution still goes from massivly hugely chaotic to being so organized down to the last hair and frekle. Even given optimal time, it sounds so unlikely.
Amino acids? I will have to look in to it. Isn't that however one of those lab test with optimal situations and such? Again, I'll ahve to look into it, because I really don't see how something non living, can create life. Besides scientists would have had caused it somehow right?
"Good ol' U A of A." Funny.
Okay, so US of A. To start with, people travled here to the Americas (at least the pilgrams), for religious freedom. The Untied States was formed after a bunch of rich white men who didn't want to pay their taxes revolted. People seem to always focus on the whole seperation of church and state thing. When our founding fathers were first trying to write the constution they argued and fought. Then Ben Franklin told everyone that before they could do anything they needed to pray for the guidence of God. So our fore fathers got on their knees to write to talk to God and then wrote our most profound document that makes us unique from everyone else (besides the beaches and buffalos). The reason the whole "church and state" thing was in there, was because they didn't want anything like the Catholic church was in years before. They didn't want anyone saying i was their devine rite to rule over this new land. That is why that's in there. Nothing more.
Firstly Bill and Ted is like one of the greatest movies ever. Secondly how do you know? How do you know that it's not real? And I didn't say correct. I said proven. Actually documents prove and show these events happened.
Ark was a spoof? Who the heck would take that kind of time to make an ark? Maybe it is spoof, but how do you know that?
Not sure what you're saying about David and Goliath?
Smote? Typo or is that dialect?
The chart? Still not sure what your saying with the Pilttown man. Are you saying he was faked?
What about everything else? Or did you adress that earlier?
Your belief is fact driven. I gathered that. But evolution isn't one of those airtight things. Science never deals in absolutes.
I belive in facts too, which is why I don't belive in evolution.
After the fact? The Bible has been authinticated age wise. They use what it was written on or how it was written for that.
The certain veiws left out? What about the ones left in? Maybe they matter more? Maybe not. Have you head about the book of Mary? Or the book of Thomas? They are books writen by ghostwriters who give them names of well known people to catch on. Matthew? He was almost as hated as Judas. He was a tax collector. Who would wanna write a book from his point of view?
Acts the book? Or what went on?
I take the Bible literitly and at face value. I don't think they're are any metaphors. Beside parables.
Churches today can't agree on anything. There is divison that is spreading more and more and making people doubt more and more.
Proof works both ways.
How did that thing in Sweeden come out by the way?
Are you a scientist yourself? Or just intrested?
I'll look into the site. It's really late here and I've been typing for over an hour on this.
You make very arguments. As I said at the begining, I know that I most likely won't be able to change your minds. But I can try....
Thanks for contributing though.
Anyone notice, how the comments get bigger and bigger?
Again, I have other blogs if anyone is intrested...
which obviously you guys aren't...sigh...
Lucy is not a chimpanzee, a no scientifict says that. Have you ever see Lucy´s pelvis? Have you ever see a chimpanzee´s pelvis? They´re complete different.
And life is know for its weird thermodynamics. Life is about negentropy, that is just the opposite to entropy.
Life is not perfect. By example, eyes are build the opposite way a intelligent mind would do it, and we have lot of trouble because of that.
And we´re not descent of living apes and no scientifict says that either. They just use them as models sometimes, that´s not the same thing.
Evolution theories is about evolution mechanisms, about HOW things evolve. The evolution itself, that means, change of living beings through time, has been recognize as a fact for a long time now. Even catholic church, judaism, budhism and a buch of other religions recognize it.
If you´re a going to critics something, please know the subject well before you do that.
Malena,
Firstly I have spent hours and hours of research on this topic. I have gone to seminars and have looked at all sides of this argument. I have stayed up till nearly three in the morning typing on this blog. So I do know what I'm talking about. Just because you don't agree with me dosen't mean I'm stupid. So once again don't insult my intellegence. I've worked hard and long on this blog to address as many points as I can. It's actually really stressful.
Anyhow...
We already adressed Lucy. To go into again is repetative but I will. No, I haven't ever stared at a champanzee's crouch. I'm not really into that. Yeah they may be diffrent, but that dosen't mean that Lucy is our great something or other. Just like because we're similar to apes in sturcture dosen't mean we came from them. It's a whole 'nother ballgame so to speak.
Again, all I was doing when mentioning thermodynamics was pointing out that by that law, Evolution can not exist. That's what the law states, I'm just repeating it.
I got an email today about the human eye in realtion to evolution. Rather than going on and on, I'll just share it with you.
Did the eye evolve from a simple layer of photo-sensitive cells into the eyes that we have today? Darwin remarked that ...
"several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light"
... but how do photo-sensitive cells work? Is the invertebrate eye really wired the wrong way round? Dr George Marshall an expert in anatomy, who specialised in the human eye for several years answers these questions and many more.
Dr George Marshall obtained his B.Sc. (Hons.) in Biology at the University of Strathclyde in 1984. He conducted research into bone marrow cancer at the University of Sheffield for three years until invalided out with a serious, normally incurable illness. He was dramatically healed of this in November 1987 and soon obtained an M.Med.Sci. from Sheffield. He then worked at the University of Manchester before taking up a post at the University of Glasgow in 1988. He obtained his Ph.D. in Ophthalmic Science at Glasgow in 1991 and was elected to chartered biologist (C.Biol.) status and to membership of the Institute of Biology (M.I.Biol.) in 1993. He is now Sir Jules Thorn Lecturer in Ophthalmic Science.
An interview with eye-disease researcher Dr George Marshall, University of Glasgow, Scotland (is the eye is wired backward?) - http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/840
Edinburgh Creation Group is an active forum where scientifically minded people meet to discuss evidence supporting the biblical account of creation.
http://edinburghcreationgroup.org
Okay, so we do have problems with our eyes. That's why we have blind people and people need glasses, but for all the other eyes that do work? If one single thing was wrong, the eye would work at all. Sure as we get older our vision may get worse but we can take care of that ourselves with glasses.
Here is the guys video. It probly won't work on here so I'll just give you the link. Check it out. Watch it. Listen to what this guy's got to say.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtjjajHSmIY
Did I say we were decendents of apes? I don't think I did. Why are they used as models? Because they're so similar? Then how do we know Lucy isn't any diffrent?
The only reason certain religous groups will accept Evolution is because they're willing to be watered down. I'm sorry but it's true. When they change what they belive to accept something they don't that's weaking thier faith and their following and it's no wonder people don't really know what to believe anymore. Those that do accepted it do a disfavor for everyone else because it confuses everyone else into know what they actually belive. Like when in history there where two Popes and no one know who to follow. Stuff like this has caused problems throughout history.
That's all I'm going to say on that.
Again do not insult me. I have worked hard on this and I have recived so much critism and grief over this blog.
Please read the comments before adding to the conversation because the same points keep getting repeated over and over again. Thank you for contributing to this blog, but let's keep it moving moving forward.
Thanks for reading.
Howdy, back again. I had a paper to write disputing the mulit-regionalism theory in evolution. Ok now where to start. The jump up from Lucy, to us aka Homo sapien sapiens aka anatomically modern humans is well recorded and through it show a gradual shift in structure and cranial capacity, (excluding those wiley Neanderthals). The question isn't "are we evolved from primates?" that is a solid yes scientifically sound, the reason its called a theory is because it can be tested, has been tested, and passed those tested fully. A hypothesis on the other hand is an untested theory. Gravity is a theory but I bet your cotton socks you believe in it? The reason you (you as in the world of creationists)(from here out creationalists are anyone who believes the literal truth in a holy book) believe it is because the bible says nothing about how we stay on the earth, that theory s okay it doesnt upset the status quo. Scientific knowledge and reasoning is perfectly acceptable in areas of medicine, aircraft engineering, energy creation and management. As soon as I goes against something from the bible, science is untrustworthy and unreliable. The problem with biblical science books, which from your arguements it appears you have been reading, is that they are bias from the start. Science, real science, isn't. If a researcher found a fossil that could not be explained at all that according to Darwin, would throw the whole theory out. Of course Darwin wrote his book a long time ago and we understand much much now than he did, but that point would remain true. We have found nothing like that. As the the probability that evolution could happen being impossible. That is basic maths, any formula (the beginning of life) no matter how improbable given enough chances, will become definite. I attended a lecture recently with an evolutionary biologist, who described this like the lottery, with 1 in 92,000,000 chance of winning yet every 1-2 weeks someone wins. Highly improbable becomes almost definite. As for the other bits, Pilttown man was a fake. Faked by a guy in England looking glory, money etc the usual things, and the chart you are using to show evolution is exactly what i mentioned earlier about biblical science, the most dangerous thing you can get. Opinions used under the guise of fact. Extreme example the National Socialist Party or the Nazis to the world. Whales DID NOT start on land, they are ocean bound have been from the get-go. The ark was a spoof it was all over the news maybe a week after it was 'found'. Think about it seriously, the ark would be in controvertible evidence of the truth in biblical stories, if would have been paraded everywhere, the big three (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) would have a field day. As for the bible the bible was written after the fact, I do my research too. Between 100-400 years after the death of JC, and many books that were originally in the bible were removed 400 years ago with the new canon, due to contradictory statements etc. The bible is not evidence, yes there have been historical places and people but the sky god stuff isnt historical its fictional. Using the Bible as evidence of God and then as God as evidence for the bible is not good enough proof. I am in the middle of my B.Sc at the minute thats how I know the facts, I have too. Sweden? Huh? Think about the facts and check real science t biblical or good old wiki.
Gotta say thanks for keeping on this blog.
You had to write a paper on this stuff? Sorry, that sounds like it would suck. Even though enough has been written on here to write a small book.
I'll start off by saying that this is most likely going to end up at the point of agreeing to disagree. I mean I figured that it would from the get go but hey...
I'll start with the creationist comment. Yes most of the things I've found on here are from creation sciencists. Some are not, but for those that are, you can examine the people though. For example there are so many scientist that have started out beliving Evolution and have found through their science exploration that Evolution has holes. These scientists have then found that the idea of a god is more suited to what they've found. Then they pursue what they belive is the truth and become what's known as creationists.
Now obviously this isn't always the case. Some people start out as Christians and try to back up thier faith with facts. I guess I'd fall under this catagory but I wouldn't call myself a creationist persay.
I try to root all the facts presented in scientific truth. Basically showing evolution is imposible using science and logic, rather than saying that the Bible dosesn't go with it. I mean, yeah the Bible going agaisnt evolution may fuel an arguement but dosen't make it the main point of the argument.
I try to keep it unbias. I was brought up in a Christian home so yeah that does make me bias, but as far as the facts, I try to keep them stright, and as you guys constantly say I don't know everything about what I'm talking about. I'm trying though. I thank I have made valid points rather you guys acknowledge them or not.
With Lucy I'll bite. Say we do come from her. At what point then do we develop consious thoughts? The difference in right and wrong? Love, affection, awarness? What people call a soul, when does that come in?
With this whole Lucy conversation, there really isn't much else to say. We've gone over and over this again and again. I know I won't be able to tell you diffrent as you won't be able to tell me we came from her.
How do you know though that the chart I presented on this blog is false? Have you seen every case? Granted this works both ways and I can tell you know a lot more on this then I do. I'll be honest, I saw it on a friend's myspace page and thought it was intresting so I brought it up when pointing stuff out. As far as each individual link, I can't really tell you much. But I can say that I don't belive it. I don't belive it because there are so many missing links. We haven't found everything. If anything on that chart is true though then the whole evolution of man is screwed.
Rather it was made by a Christian who belives in a "sky-god" or not the argument is that not all of these are accepted by a lot of people. There is divison on the matter.
Gravity may be a theory but it still has laws. Law of Gravity. There isn't a Law of Evolution. Laws are infailible.
I disagree with you though if a scientist found something that disproved evolution that it would be accepted. Firstly that person would try their best to somehow link it to Evolution. Secondly, they would be highly scrutinized for going agaisn't the grain or what has been belived to be true for so long. Last point I'll bring up on this is the fact that even if someone found that information, couldn't somehow link it back to evolution, and could take the scrutiny, the world still wouldn't want the belive. Everything today is based on Evolution, from movies to books, from books to schools. The world would have to restart in a way. Most people wouldn't want that. History is popular culture. For example, I don't know how common this is in Europe, but we'll learn that people use to think the world was flat. Our parent's learned this, our grandparents and so on. Most people don't know that the year Columbus sailed the Ocean blue (1492) is the same exact year that the globe was invented. Why have we always learned this? Because a man named Washington Irving wrote a book called "The Voyage of Christopher Columbus" where in it, it discribed that no one would support Columbus because they thought the wolrd was flat. If any of that made sense, what I mean is that Evolution won't change. I know that, you probaly know that. Science is indeed always changing, but somethings don't. I realize this sounds crazy, maybe even a conspiracy theory but it's true.
Evolution is still an impossible formula. People win the lotery because so many play. Yeah odds are low that you could win, but odds increase when there's alot going into it. Evolution is still always one in a billonith. A million in a billonith is alot better chance.
I have to go eat dinner. I think I pretty much covered everything. With the Bible, I'll try to address that soon. Thanks for reading.
Gotta say thanks for keeping on this blog.
You had to write a paper on this stuff? Sorry, that sounds like it would suck. Even though enough has been written on here to write a small book.
I'll start off by saying that this is most likely going to end up at the point of agreeing to disagree. I mean I figured that it would from the get go but hey...
I'll start with the creationist comment. Yes most of the things I've found on here are from creation sciencists. Some are not, but for those that are, you can examine the people though. For example there are so many scientist that have started out beliving Evolution and have found through their science exploration that Evolution has holes. These scientists have then found that the idea of a god is more suited to what they've found. Then they pursue what they belive is the truth and become what's known as creationists.
Now obviously this isn't always the case. Some people start out as Christians and try to back up thier faith with facts. I guess I'd fall under this catagory but I wouldn't call myself a creationist persay.
I try to root all the facts presented in scientific truth. Basically showing evolution is imposible using science and logic, rather than saying that the Bible dosesn't go with it. I mean, yeah the Bible going agaisnt evolution may fuel an arguement but dosen't make it the main point of the argument.
I try to keep it unbias. I was brought up in a Christian home so yeah that does make me bias, but as far as the facts, I try to keep them stright, and as you guys constantly say I don't know everything about what I'm talking about. I'm trying though. I thank I have made valid points rather you guys acknowledge them or not.
With Lucy I'll bite. Say we do come from her. At what point then do we develop consious thoughts? The difference in right and wrong? Love, affection, awarness? What people call a soul, when does that come in?
With this whole Lucy conversation, there really isn't much else to say. We've gone over and over this again and again. I know I won't be able to tell you diffrent as you won't be able to tell me we came from her.
How do you know though that the chart I presented on this blog is false? Have you seen every case? Granted this works both ways and I can tell you know a lot more on this then I do. I'll be honest, I saw it on a friend's myspace page and thought it was intresting so I brought it up when pointing stuff out. As far as each individual link, I can't really tell you much. But I can say that I don't belive it. I don't belive it because there are so many missing links. We haven't found everything. If anything on that chart is true though then the whole evolution of man is screwed.
Rather it was made by a Christian who belives in a "sky-god" or not the argument is that not all of these are accepted by a lot of people. There is divison on the matter.
Gravity may be a theory but it still has laws. Law of Gravity. There isn't a Law of Evolution. Laws are infailible.
I disagree with you though if a scientist found something that disproved evolution that it would be accepted. Firstly that person would try their best to somehow link it to Evolution. Secondly, they would be highly scrutinized for going agaisn't the grain or what has been belived to be true for so long. Last point I'll bring up on this is the fact that even if someone found that information, couldn't somehow link it back to evolution, and could take the scrutiny, the world still wouldn't want the belive. Everything today is based on Evolution, from movies to books, from books to schools. The world would have to restart in a way. Most people wouldn't want that. History is popular culture. For example, I don't know how common this is in Europe, but we'll learn that people use to think the world was flat. Our parent's learned this, our grandparents and so on. Most people don't know that the year Columbus sailed the Ocean blue (1492) is the same exact year that the globe was invented. Why have we always learned this? Because a man named Washington Irving wrote a book called "The Voyage of Christopher Columbus" where in it, it discribed that no one would support Columbus because they thought the wolrd was flat. If any of that made sense, what I mean is that Evolution won't change. I know that, you probaly know that. Science is indeed always changing, but somethings don't. I realize this sounds crazy, maybe even a conspiracy theory but it's true.
Evolution is still an impossible formula. People win the lotery because so many play. Yeah odds are low that you could win, but odds increase when there's alot going into it. Evolution is still always one in a billonith. A million in a billonith is alot better chance.
I have to go eat dinner. I think I pretty much covered everything. With the Bible, I'll try to address that soon. Thanks for reading.
No problem about the continuation I hope to show you that evolution is not just a theory it is the truth. As for the Laws of Physics well that's the name people call it but it is the theory of gravity same as evolution. As I'm sure you've noticed the only people who argue with evolution are creationalists. Whether people have high academic credits or not, if they look at evolution using scripture as evidence it makes their arguements moot. With the graph check out http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/756/hominintimelineww3.jpg for a more accurate. You will see a couple of question marks, the one at habilis is because difference schools of thought are the rudolfensis & habilis are the same. The others are hypothesis that there is another specimen between them, again from scientific data. But as in all sciences not everything has been discovered. This shows that with such overwhelming evidence when yet more pieces of the puzzle are revealed the evidence will be even stronger. Forget about the evidence for evolution look at the evidence against it. It is flawed using broad strokes to cover millions of years. The Neanderthals in Shanidar, Irag; had buried bodies with flowers. Many remains have been found with healed injuries that could only have healed with social order and caring for the sick and old. The "Love, affection, awarness? What people call a soul" you ask about. That is there in a homo species that no longer exists. Modern behavioural traits have been around for a long time, Ralph Solecki in Science noted "although the body was archaic, the spirit was modern". This term spirit or soul is a style of brain mapping allowing different aspects of intelligence to operate intertwined. (Currently a very interesting debate with Steven Mithen putting forward for some excellent in the Neolithic mind. As for the world being flat arguement you are correct, but in our discussion Columbus would be an evolutionist. Evolution is a relevant newbie here. Creationalism has been on the go for thousands of years, Darwin himself held off publishing the origin of species because he believed in creationalism. Thats why he never touched the origin of man directly. Evolution isnt one in a billion think of how many stars there are, and how many planets there are orbiting those stars. The universe is estimated at being around 14 billion years, best estimate, so in all that time and all those sites its extremely likely for life to form.
Hello, I'm a Christian evolutionist, and I'm currently studying evolution in great detail. Your blog caught my eye, and I've got a few things to say (my post is anonymous since I don't have a Google account, but you can call me Erasmus)
Interesting arguments...but all are outdated and refuted. These arguments do not represent holes in the Theory of Evolution, they represent false conclusions. I believe much has been said already but I will show you the facts here.
First of all, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not contradict evolution, the Law (as said before) only applies to closed systems, such as a bunch of hot gases sealed in a jar. The gases will inevitably cool down and lose energy. This does not happen with earth and evolution. Earth is constantly supplied with energy from the Sun, and the planet is incredibly dynamic, always changing. There are many who can explain this in better detail than I can, so hope you will read this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html
Now, you also mention the Law of Biodiversity. What Pasteur proved in the experiment you cited disproved spontaneous generation. That is, fully-formed life does not arise out of nothing. This is true. However, the first self-replicating molecules and other nonliving structures were not fully-formed cells. Many intermediate stages were present and have been determined through experiments. At any rate, what you are talking about is abiogenesis, the origin of life from chemicals, not evolution. Evolution deals with how life diversifies and changes. But, for a clearer explanation of how the first life formed, check this out:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
As for the Age of the Earth, the evidence strongly supports it being about 4.5 billion years old. Not sure where 10,000 came from. But, I have a couple articles explaining how we know the age of the Earth:
http://ncseweb.org/rncse/20/3/radiometeric-dating-does-work
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
Now, the sea salt, moon dust, and geological column arguments are all disproven. You should be able to find the refutations of these arguments in this Index:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
And another thing, there are no objects drastically out of place in the fossil record. No one has ever found a shoe with a dinosaur, or human bones/footprints with dinosaurs. The fossil record is just as we would expect if evolution occurred. Note: the consistency of the fossil record was established over a century before evolution was proposed by Darwin. Anyway, another "hole" filled by evidence.
Also, numerous transitional fossils have been found. You can find out about them in the Index I linked to, or just check out the book Evolution: "What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters" by Donald Prothero. Your argument about there having to be millions of dead fish is confusing, that is not what one would expect from the fossil record. You see, fossils are buried deep underground, we don't trip over them, we dig for them. Mutation; now that is another topic covered in the Index, but I'll put in a few words here. Mutations do not make an animal sterile. I think your confusing mutations with something else. Mutations happen all the time, every animal carries some mutations. Even you carry mutations in your genes that make you genetically different from those around you. The accumulation of certain mutations in a population leads to evolutionary change.
In regard to the chart from Jack Chick's tract "Big Daddy" (the chart with the human evolution distortions)I would strongly recommend you take a look at this parody tract, which clears up the false facts put forth in the chart:
http://www.facts4u.com/OffSite_Stored_Pages/wyd_files/wyd03.htm
I've been meaning to see Expelled, but I know that the National Center for Science Education has been trying to clear up the misconceptions and falsehoods in the movie. So, here's their site:
http://www.ncseweb.org
I hope I've cleared things up for you, and perhaps you will check your sources next time to make sure they are right. Please comment soon, I look forward to your response!
- Erasmus
Look guys. This is the last comment I'm posting on this particular entry. We can argue in circles all we want, but it won't do anything. Obviously, you're minds are set and so is mine. I'm not going to dissable comments on this or anything, because I think you guys (anyone posting) should be able to talk about it if you want to. I have spent too much time on this blog and the conversations are going no where. We are just bringing up the same points over and over again.
On day I may do another blog on this same topic but for now I'm done commenting on this.
There is just one thing though that I want to leave you with and that is this. What if? What if there is a God? What if Evolution isn't true? What if Evolution is true and God caused it? Just don't ever stop asking that question. What if?
Thanks for posting.
WE are currently evolving. Evolving is a painfully slow process that takes hundreds of millions of years. Humans have only been around for eight thousand years and well.....we wouldn't be expected to evolve much in that time. All the fish that should just be 'dead outside our front door' is a bit exaggerating if I may say. The cycle of life states that in nature, everything gets recycled to form new living beings. Oil is actually made of dead fish! The trees sticking up in the sedimentary rocks are there due to dead animals piling up round them over millions of years, thus creating different layers of sedimentary rock.
I understand that the big bang theory sounds strange and unrealistic but so does the theory of quantum physics, but a christian takes this for granted. The bible goes only so far before you have to support science...did God decide on which elements to have on his periodic table...or is that nonsense as well?
Will God forgive me when I die, like he promised, or will he send me to hell?
thanks
You know I really was going to stop commenting on this but I do want to point out some things with your comment.
You say we are currently evolving, but how? Painfully slow process but should we still be able to see some diffrences? Again we will never be able to prove in our lifetimes that we are evolveing. We don't live for millions of years. Even so, there would be transationals or mutations. I'm not talking siamesse twins, but true blue evolution would mean we're getting better right? So why don't we have a partially developed eye on the back of our heads or extreme muscle structures. What about that leap that they say evolution takes every now and then? We should notice something and to my knowledge there are no current examples.
To the fishes. How is this an exageration? It is exactly what evolution states. You said yourself that it's a painfully long process that takes millions of millions of years. So you don't just go from a fish to lizard. You have to have a lot and I mean a lot of transtional creatures. So quite literitly they would be everywhere. It's not just fish to land, but it's ever single animal. There would at least be a very noticable amount and the fact that dead fish is in oil is irrelevent. All it shows is that along time ago there were fish. If you haven't noticed we are running out of oil somewhat. It's very possible that we may see oil completly gone in our lifetimes, or at least maybe our kid's lifetimes. Point? There would be a whole butt load more and there wouldn't be any need for missing links, becuase they would be obvious and pretty much everywhere.
The trees? You really think that a bunch of dead animals are pilling up around the same exact tree, for millions of years? There are trees known to live into their hundreds. Maybe rarely their thousands. But millions? It isn't possible for a tree to stay in the same position for millions of years while little by little, it gets filled around until it's actually underground. Furthermore, what about dinosaurs that have been found in the middle of giving birth? Or eating another animal? Would you say that they did this for millions of years too? It just dosen't make sense.
The only thing that could explain these kinds of things is if there was something fast that happened. Ie: the great flood. If you want prove of what I'm saying, look up Mt. Saint Helens. They have an entire forest under a lake because the volcano quickly errupted and caused everything to be quickly covered and you'll find layers just like the grand caynon, were trees and animals are covered throughout. It had to be some sort of instant occrence and since it is sedimentary rock, which is formed by water mixing with silt to create a cement like mixture, it would make sense that a flood took alot out.
Quantum Physics? Can't say I'm an expert on the subject. But if you're talking about the basic structure of all things, then yeah that's mindboggling. I mean, when you think about it, if there is infinate biggness then it's a=only fair to reason that their is also infinate smallness. Not sure how I see that Christians take this for granted, but hey if they do, sorry? It is actually very intresting stuff. Did you also know that they found even deeper, that their is something smaller that makes up everything. Ironically it's in the shape of a perfect cross. Just thought that was kinda cool.
The bible goes only so far before you have to support science in what way? Why can't science overlap with the Bible? Because blind are made to see and death are made to hear? I want you to consider the following statment that I got from a very good speaker. He said,
"For instance, in a piece of poetry if someone said "when I see you my heart jumps out of my skin"--that would be awful science but it may be great truth. If I purely looked at the phrase as a scientist I would say this was a very naïve statement and would have no use for the book I found it in. But as a lover it may make perfect sense." Why can't science overlap with Christianity? Just because science can't nessacarily prove it or show that there is a god, why does that mean that we need to discount Christianity? Just something to think on.
Never said elements on the periodic table were nonsense. These elements help us in everyday. The fact that we can say that certain things will help someone in one case and harm them in another is nothing short of remarkable. If anything though, this shows that everything is made up of building blocks. I think that shows that something had to have a hand in this as it dosen't seem logical yet again that this could all happen on it's own.
You're last question is the reason I wrote you back. There is a statement you made.
"Will God forgive me when I die, like he promised, or will he send me to hell?"
Firstly God dosen't send anyone to Hell. Hear me out. Hell wasn't even made for humans but for a few bad angels that got too big for their briches.
Now I'm sure you've probably heard this, and if you haven't I want to appoligize to you becuase that just means we (Christains) haven't done our job like we're suppose to. I also want to appoligize for anything a Christain has ever said to you that hurt you, offended you, or just made you plain angry in anyway. The following is important so please don't just shut this down.
Okay, I'm sure you've heard the story of the garden of eden. God made the Earth in six days, and he made people in his image. God is perfect. He created everything including the universe, time, and us. It's a very mind boggleing thing again that you can't really picture in your mind. Kind of like how you can't picture what "nothing" is. You would tend to think of a blank sheet of paper or a black hole, but you can't picture nothing, because it is humanly impossible.
Back on topic. God is perfect. Man was originally perfect. God made one rule, and one only; not to eat from this tree in the middle of the garden. Well first Eve got tempted by the snake (who we consider to be the devil)and then Adam was sudduced by this evil as well and God's only rule was broken.
Adam and Eve had sinned. Remember God is perfect. Sin is not, sin is evil. So Adam and Eve got evicted. They were kicked out of the graden and the rest is history.
So here, we see how becuase of sin, man is seperated by God. God didn't seat us up for failure but we messed up what God had set up.
God isn't merciless.
There was one thing that God called for, and that was a perfect blood sacrifice.
Enter Jesus Christ of Nazerine. God's son, the word, God in human form, whatever you want to call him, Jesus was sent down from Heaven to be this blood sacrifice. He died in our place essintally. He lived a perfect life, never did anything wrong, but still he was put to death in the most satistic of ways: the cross.
It says in Romans that the wages of sin is death. Jesus died, for us. He came, lived his entire life knowing that he would die for all or us. How could any man do this? Any man couldn't. Jesus wasn't just any man though, he was God.
Jesus didn't stay dead though. He was burried in a barrowed tomb and three days later the stone was rolled away to find that Jesus wasn't there. He had risen, like he said he would.
He then offered up an invation to one and all. The gap caused by sin had been broken and people could now stop sacrificeing animals and get to God by way of the cross.
The cross acted as a drawbridge of sorts.
"Will God forgive me when I die, like he promised, or will he send me to hell?"
God promised to make a way. He made a way through His Son Jesus. He offered an invitation to everyone. He gave the option of choice. Except this invitaiton, ask Christ into your life, try to live for Him, and be saved. If you don't want to, that's fine but the consecences are far too great.
So will God forgive you? Yes. Will God send anyone to Hell? Yes. If you reject what Jesus did on the cross for all of us, then you are rejecting God and by the way of His law, you would be condenmed to a dark place of eternal tourment. But if you do ask Christ into your life, truly ask Him into your life, then you will be saved.
I say this not to scare or offended but it is what the Bible says. This sounds confusing or dumb maybe I'm sure. You know why? There is this guy that dosen't want anyone to make that decision. He's known by all kinds of names, but in lamemen's terms the devil. Quoteing The Usaul Suspects, "...the greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing people he didn't exist..." This is so true. He dosen't want you to go to Heaven. He wants to hurt you. The Bible describes the devil as a roaring lion. A lion that wants only you're destruction and anything that can make God unhappy, he'll be more than overjoyed to oblige.
This was alot at once. Please don't take it as just religous batter but please understand that God dosen't send people to Hell. We reject Him and send ourselves there.
Look, that's all I got. Again, this is the last time I plan on writting, please do not address me, but make general statements not debating theyology but evoution. I will keep this going as long as people read it and find it intresting. Once again, thanks for reading.
Ignorance should be a sin
It does seem impossible for something as complex as DNA to randomly form doesn't it? But think about this. Why do you exist, how do you exist? the odds of you existing from a specific egg and a specific sperm is 1 to 12000000000. And if you take the probability of your dad being born so that you can be born it be 1 to 1.44x10^20. If you can defy these odds and exist, why can't evolution?
Very valid point. I look at it diffrent, being born and being created. I'm here, but that's a given. When my parents concieved me (Ewwww, bad images) they knew they were haveing a baby. It maybe unlikely that I came out, me as unique as I am with my own indivual personality but I'm here. I'm just as confused as everyone else on the planet.
When it comes to being created by all these diffrent processes that seem to add varibles of unsermountable porportions, that's a high number. Granted this really high number is suppose to happen again and again until humans are created. It just dosen't seem likely. Having a baby is much more likely as you know you're going to have a child. It's not really the same as everything being created.
I have a feeling that being born isn't like Russian Roulete. Maybe it is, but I think that the people we are dosen't come from the mixture of a sperm and a egg. This I guess I would call a soul. You know the thing at the very essence of everyone, that spark. If you're here, you're meant to be here. If science can't nod at that simple statement then oh well.
Thanks for the contribution to the blog. Really good point.
I agree with the previous person, the odds of a child being born are insurmountable, and when that is compounded by the odds of parents etc having to be born first you come to staggering numbers, much like evolution. As for the soul well that is what I call consciousness and a personality. How else would we end up with personality disorders, and what would the world do without physcoanalyst's eh lol
Recent human evolution? You do realize the time scales on which human evolution takes place right? And you are assuming that you, the idiot that you are, would recognize a change if you saw it. There is evidence of recent animal evolution why would humans be differnt. Oh right, god says so.
Sorry I can't argue against that.
I would apologize for the ad honim attack but WTF is wrong with you? Seriously. No wonder the world is in a world of hurt filled as it is with troglodites like you. Keep up the faith. :-J
I really think its funny how Erasmus completely disproved "Life anyone?" entire blog, and he/ she had no retaliation. Then right away said "no more comments from me!". However, later when someone says something "Life anyone?" can actually comment on, they restart commenting.
So far, anything about scientific proof I would say has been said. But I say this... Until this day, the world itself is too vast to comprehend. How would millions of years of slow evolution be any easier to comprehend? From what I see, you are using out dated science to disprove current science. Evolution doesn't disprove religion. Nor does religion disprove evolution. However, its great to have evidence of either one. Perhaps the religious are jealous that evolution has solid proof and religion doesn't? hmmm
You guys are so nice. Or are you the same poster? Or Erasmus?
Anyways.
Maybe I should have posted a response to Erasmus, but what would have that done? It's the same arguments over and over again and again. At that point I had gotten really frustrated because I was getting comments just about every other day and had spent way too much on it. I have spent hours and hours on this blog. That's one of the reasons it makes me mad when someone just calls me a realigious biggot that can't look at all the facts. I have looked at all the facts, and I never set out trying to prove there is a god. All I wanted to say was hey, these are some questionalble areas that I'm curious.
To Erasmus, thank you for blogging. You actaully gave a really well done unbiased attack on my facts. However, I've talked with everyone on here by that point on those facts. I just saw Expelled and I don't know how someone could put a movie like that down. Expelled just shows that a lot of scientists and some doctors who didn't nessacrily belive in evolution and they were all fired and blacklisted. I don't care what you think, but what's right about that?
Also, you misquoted me. Here's what I said:
"Look guys. This is the last comment I'm posting on this particular entry. We can argue in circles all we want, but it won't do anything. Obviously, you're minds are set and so is mine. I'm not going to dissable comments on this or anything, because I think you guys (anyone posting) should be able to talk about it if you want to. I have spent too much time on this blog and the conversations are going no where. We are just bringing up the same points over and over again.
On day I may do another blog on this same topic but for now I'm done commenting on this.
There is just one thing though that I want to leave you with and that is this. What if? What if there is a God? What if Evolution isn't true? What if Evolution is true and God caused it? Just don't ever stop asking that question. What if?
Thanks for posting."
For a long time after that, no one posted. Then someone did, and I wrote them back. Mostly because they made the comment
"Will God forgive me when I die, like he promised, or will he send me to hell?"
and that is why I wrote him back. Okay? I did address other things but that was because I heard someone explain something to me in a way I wanted to share (The whole heart thing). I'm sorry if you thought I was posting because I could actually agrue there facts where as with Erasmus's I apprently could not.
If it will make you happy, I'm thinking about writing another blog on this. This one's a little full anyways. There are other facts that I've learned lately that I think make a really good arguement, some from self exploration, some from the movie Expelled. Now I don't know when I'll get time to do this, but I'll try. Then you can just mock me all you want on that page too.
I think part of that whole uncomprehension thing could be prove in God enough. I'm sure you'll be the first to disagree with me. But I'd argue that God himself or the concept of a god is hard to grasp itself.
And one thing I just don't understand. When ever I bring up that there hasn't been fruther evolution you guys always say that's because it's pain fully long process that takes millions and millions of years. Okay, that being said. When does it stop within a species evoloving? Also the example of the fish (I think it's somewhere in the comments). One tries to come out of the water everytime to get on land. Eventaully according to evolution that fish shoulf become some sort of half lizard half fish to put in lamemens terms right? They would have to be a little diffrent everytime. This is what I mean by the fact that we should notice something, anything. Even if it is such a painstaking long process.
Now with religon not disproveing evolution or evolution not disproving religon. Look I'm nto saying it does or dosen't. I'm saying the Bible says that God created the world in six days and then rested. I belive that. People say that six days for God could be six billion years for us. I don't know. I do know that the Bible was written by man for man and is suppose to be from God.
Talk to any evolutionist and they will tell you personally that evolution proves there is no god.
I don't know. I'll try to blog on this again. When I do it will be called Re: Evolution. Look for it. Yell at me if it isn't done within the next month. I'm finding it hard to find time to do this anyways and as I'm a senior in high school about to graduate it's getting harder. (Please don't bring my age into this. It is irrlevent)
By the way, I'm a he.
Yes! Finally a blog that supports Creationism. (You have no idea how many blogs I've been to!)
Anywho, I was just going to share some ideas.
1.) I believe that I might have an answer for the fossil record. *clears-throat* First of all, if there was a global flood all animals would be struggling to swim for their life. Evolutionists say, "If that was true we'd find human bones beneath dinosaur bones, and other 'modern animals'." It was because of this 'evolutionary evidence' that I came up with this theory. The theory of primeswimmers.
My theory states that animals lower in the fossil record were not well suited for swimming. It makes sense. I can't imagine a 75,000 pound Apatosaurus swimming, can you? The animals higher in the fossil record are more suited for swimming for longer amounts of time. The mammals are above the dinosaurs. Like the mammoths. Mammoths are in the elephant family right? And elephants can swim pretty well right? But despite their better efforts than reptiles, they too drowned.
Evolutionists could argue, "Well, how could the aquatic reptiles drown?" To be honest, I don't believe they all did. When the earthquake in the Indian Ocean caused that tsunami back in 2004, a large variety of undiscovered sea creatures were found washing up on beaches in that area. Also Chinese fishermen found a corpse of what looks like a Mosasurus. However, evolutionists are claiming it was nothing more than a decaying bull shark. There is also the famous legend of the Loch Ness Monster. Laugh at me if you must, but it does resemble a Plesiosaurus. The main reason scientists have written it off as a hoax is because it doesn't fit together with evolution. (The main reason. Not the only reason.)
2.) Now, lets talk about the K-T event, the mass extinction that killed all the dinosaurs. Most scientists agree that it was the meteor that hit the Yucatan peninsula in Mexico. It is better known as the Impact Theory, and it is widely accepted by evolutionists of all kinds. However, a team of scientists led by Prof. Gerta Keller of Princeton and Prof. Wolfgang Stinnesbeck of the University of Karlsruhe had found evidence that the Yucatan crater is Pre-Cretaceous. In other words, it hit BEFORE the end of the dinosaurs and therefore couldn't possible have wiped them out. Evolutionists could argue, "Well perhaps it was another meteor of which we haven't found the crater." But could this really be true? Can the impact theory really work? Well, lets see, what's so bad about a 6 mile wide meteor hitting a single place on earth? According to scientists, if a meteor of that size hit earth it would cause worldwide forest fires, tsunamis several miles high, acid rain, and an impact winter in which dust would block out the sun for months or years. All right, sounds like enough to spell the doom of all dinosaurs right? But such a catastrophe questions how other animals could have survived. Like amphibians and fish, they live in water and neither couldn't live without it. Pollution from acid rain would cause them to die out. Claire Belcher of the University of London has found evidence which suggests that wildfires were not widespread in North America following the KT impact which is where the wildfires would most likely be as the crater is in Mexico.
I could go on about this, but I want to know what others think about my ideas and hear any arguments about them.
3.) I will have more evidence supporting Creation and Intelligent Design in my books. You will be able to read my books once I put them on my website. By the way, the books aren't about Creation or Intelligent Design. My books are about speculative evolution. In short, making up futuristic animals. In the beging of my books I write about my veiws on evolution and talk about my theory of primeswimmers.
If you want to learn more about my books you can find the link to my website on my profile.
Welcome to the conversation Mr. Denton and thanks for the post. I hope you'll be able to keep up with it.
Okay ladies and gents.
I just posted Re:Evolution.
It's very mixed up. I'm tried and I just right it. It's a lot shorter too. Follow it if you want or not. I hope this blog will be more like an open forum.
Now I'll probably shut down commenting on this blog. Thanks for anybody who contributed.
I hope so too Doug. (You ok with that name?)
Doug? That couldn't be further away from my name but sure why not?
It is nice though to have someone else on here that isn't just calling me an idiot.
Hmm, I understand that. Well Doug, I got alot more stuff to share but all in due time.
if the chances of anyone being born is 1.44 in 10^20 that is a relatively probable number compared to the chance of a single cell organism like bacteria to evolve into anything more than just more bacteria. The chances of that ever happening is about less than 1 in 10^40000 that number is even defied by the scientific community seeing that any number with a chance more than 10^50 is impossible. So what I'm saying is Creationism is the way and not the piece of swiss cheese evolution every science orientated "genius" believes...although there are several scientists who believed in God and creation not DARWIN x-x...
Oh, don't call them scientists, mate. Don't give them credit for what they're not. Call them 'authoritative intellectuals'.
Okay wise boys... (Btw you can refer to me as Pelagon)
So Mr. Anonoymous said that "the chances of anyone being born is 1.44 in 10^20 that is a relatively probable number compared to the chance of a single cell organism like bacteria to evolve into anything more than just more bacteria. The chances of that ever happening is about less than 1 in 10^40000 that number is even defied by the scientific community seeing that any number with a chance more than 10^50 is impossible." Oh really? Because if you actually add it all up, you being born, then if you have any siblings being born, specifically your parents being born and the childern you will father/mother (also factoring whther they will be viable offspring with no abnormal deformaties)... the chances of that particular family existing specifically with that individual is greater than 10^50... so you saying that your onw exisitance is impossible? Just how evolution is impossible? Oh please... and for another point, you making a pretty unkowledgable (sorry if my english is bad, its not my first language) assumtion to state that Darwin was not a creationist... he was infact a cleric for the church. So saying that scientists that believe in religion and not in Darwin is pretty... umm whats the word... silly? Because he was a priest?... Sigh... people these days.
And you all go on about how there are gaps in the fossil record, and that if evolution was true the fossil record should be complete by now because there would be fossilised bones from every specie... the truth is... there isn't. Similar to the previous calculations, if you know how the fossilisation process works you have to factor in the chances of any particular animal dying in the right conditions (e.g. muddy river bank) and whether they would sink through the mud quick enough and whter it will solidify quick enough... without it being eaten by other organisms, acidity in the soil breaking the bones down, whether the solidified rock would then not resurface again, exposing the bones again. Then EVEN if they are fossilised, over the years there is no guarentee that due to sedimentary rock processes that fossils will survive without being broken down into small inrecognisable fragments and minerals. THen additionally you have to factor in whether who finds the fossils... in ancient china they used to make tea out of fossils... how do we know that the only existing fossilised specimen of that "missing link" speice did not become someones tea? or used for medicine, or put in cement as a agregate, or broken into peices as workers were mining... or whatever!!! BUT if you take EVERYTHING into account, all the right conditions, all the right circumstances, and whther the right people found the specimen... then you will definetally end up with something greater than 10^50 (would that then disprove that fossils exist? I think not...). You will also have to consider that the speciment may not even be found yet... but the truth of the matter is, the reason why there are only 700 something known species of dinosaurs even though they walked this planet for more that 150 million years, and in a research study conducted in the congo 20 years ago, they went from tree to tree and managed to collect from every individual tree more than 700 NEW specices never documented before... and we only know 700 speices of dinosaurs... the reasons for all the gaps is because NOT ALL SPECIES ARE FOSSILISED... its a very very very very slim chance... so don't be ignorant and make boasting comments and arguements without taking in account the bigger picture...
The reason why people think god exists is because as evolution progressed man specific mutations fueled changing environmental constraints led to homo speices evolving "imagination", i.e. a complex brain process due to the overlapping of many cognitve signals. This led to "man" becoming self-conscious, and conscious of his/her inevitable demise (i.e. death). (If you obsevre other organisms that lack our cognitive skills, you will see they act on the basic level of self-presevation, but are not aware of the aftermath once they die) Humans became aware of this, and genetically every organism is equipped with the DNA infomation for self-presevation in the interests of preserving the species at large, humans took this one step further because of thier evolved crainal capacity and highly developed cognitive skills that gave them imagination (hence the development of technology, we imagined it before we created it), they created "God". This God was thier answer and hope that though the species may survive (remember these are all sub conscious thoughts alreay genetically programmed into you, and yes a full genetic sequence of a human was done only a short while ago, 2008, and this trait is among them), hence the preseveration of the speices, but also man sought to presve himself, since this could not be done physically, they turned to the natural world and looked for what at the time looked like coincidences (e.g. flock of birds flying in a arrow shape) and made spiratual meanings out of it, in order to concieve a powerful god or force that would look after them after they have died... all in the interest of self presevation. And like social evolution, the concept of God itself evolved... always getting more powerful, so that thier beliefs are consolidated and there is not need to worry about self-presevation, but genetically we are still aware there is no god, because we always fear death sub-consiouslly. This can be proven with when "life anyone?" said "So will God forgive you? Yes. Will God send anyone to Hell? Yes. If you reject what Jesus did on the cross for all of us, then you are rejecting God and by the way of His law, you would be condenmed to a dark place of eternal tourment. But if you do ask Christ into your life, truly ask Him into your life, then you will be saved." ........................... "saved"?... saved from what? Death? ceasing your own existance? Death, which is described as "eternal torment"? This is the pinnacle of any religion, some form of survival after death... in the interest of self-presevation.
I am not saying for you guys to drop your beliefs, by all means you are entitled to them and its only for you to decided what you want to believe in...
I was once a creationist... I wanted to prove evolution wrong myself... then I started reading, doing courses, experiments, travelling and the more I learnt the more I realised just (in my opinion and that of modern science) how far religion is from the truth... all what we have to go by is a few books fabricated by man... no more real than the J.R.R Tolkiens Middle Earth, there is no evidence that god exists... we say that there is evidence all around us, the who world... but where's the connection that he made it? Can it be proven? There is GINORMOUS missing link there... just a thought to ponder about guys... this is no attack on god. In fact I hope there is one myself, but by the looks of it, if you conduct very very thourogh research and experiments and document everything possible... it seems ever less likely to be the case. No offense to anyone.
Thanks, you can comment back if want to. Its a discussion, and I think its good to see people's opinions from both sides. :)
Alright you authoritative pseudo intellectual, first off, I'm not the math dude here so I'm not going into that one. Second, If the conditions for a fossil to be formed are so complicated, how have we found several fossils of individual species but hardly any transitional ones? I know you can argue that you have a complete transition of a whale now, but that's not true. The fossils found of ambulocetus were scientifically built up from several bones. These are the only bones that were found, http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/images/v23n4_ambulocetus.jpgIf fossilisation is so improbable, how have you 'found' all these transitional fossils in the first place? Because they've been made up!
Third! Man believes in God because of, history, archaeology, and the utter complexity and almost, impossibility of the universe. You have no historical facts that would lead you to believe man made God up. You could argue about the Greeks and their mythology, but I don't believe in the Greek gods either, so that's a lost cause. If you believe that we are ignorant to believe that the universe's complexity is the work of a supreme intelligent being, that's your opinion and we respect that. We don't agree with it, but we do respect it.
Fourth, we believe we are saved from spiritual death, and the eternal torment of hell.
Fifth, (I know I'm not going in they same order you were.) Why would we make up God on social tradition and then make up the verse, "See to it that no-one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." Col. 2:8 Why? If we are living on human tradition to survive as a species, what's wrong with it?
Sixth, you say you were once a creationist. The 'evidences' you are talking about are faulty. There's someone in the opposite of your position, his name is Mark Eastman. He was training to become a doctor. In his medical book that he studied, there was a verse from Luke. He hated it. He hated the Bible and religion. He decided to prove it wrong. He looked at the evidence and found that God existed. I've been hoping to interview him for my book. I'd like to hear his take on the subject. Also, the experiments you are talking about, what experiments?! Are you talking about the ones that prove that changes do happen over time? Well duh! Of course that happens. Everyone knows because we have Caucasians, Africans, and Asians. You might be referring to the Miller-Urray expiriment maybe? His expiriment was based of speculation. It's never been proven that the earth's early atmosphere was made of methane. Nor has it been proven that there was an 'early earth'. The idea of radioisotope dating is faulty. It's based on the unproven assumptions of observations on constant decaying unstable elements. It's never been proven that these elements decay at a constant rate. In fact in 1972, G.T. Emery preformed an expiriment on the Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates. He concluded that we can make subtle changes in these unstable element's decay rates. And that's just with our own power! Suppose that the radiation from the supernova that started the Gum nebula had caused the decay. Suppose it was the Yucatan meteor! On the subject of the Yucatan meteor, based on the same methods of dating geological strata, evidence has been found that the meteor is pre-Cretaceous! So what killed the dinosaurs?
Now listen, if there are huge gaps in religion, why don't you just ask someone like a pastor your questions? Or, I could ask them for you. I have connections with Pastor Chuck Smith, Don Stewart, and Brian Broderson. I can hear their take on it. If you have questions about science and you still want to believe in God, I'd sugest, http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answersUnlike what most evolutionary extreamists sugest, this site doesn't blame the dinosaur bones as the work of Satan. :) It really does have pretty good answers. I'm sure they have a place where you can ask questions as well. Or you can just ask me. I'm chock-full of answers. My best of hopes for you, mate. And your english sounded pretty well to me.
Hey Stephan Denton! Lol
Sorry if I came off as authoritative pseudo intellectual, you are tight to say that you have the right to believe in whatever you please, just as I have my right to believe in whatever I please. But to clear up a few things in a few of your comments...
When I said that fossilisation is impossible, I really didn't mean impossible... I just said it was slim chance, and that’s the reason why there are so many gaps and missing pieces, but at least that’s evidence that past different humanoids existed. And the next bit becomes hard to explain... yeah a lot of creationists ask why there aren’t any transitional species in our time. Well the truth is, we are all transitional species. We are not the finished product of some plan, we are still evolving, it is only however very minor evolution, and since humans shape the environment around them to suit their needs, it probably means that there is less environmental constraints on us, therefore we will evolving at a slower than most species. And when I say evolving slightly... I mean verity slightly, with small mutations occurring, e.g. over a period of 500 years people’s fingers may have grown larger by 1cm. But existing evidence already shows that the morphology of ancient Europeans, compared to skeletal structures of today shows that humans in this area have actually evolved slightly taller than most other individuals... and of course we will never see something like a human or a duck or whatever evolve in our lifetime is because if the animal mutated to be half a duck and half a crocodile due to the environmental constraint that flooding has increased the depth of the water and now they have to dive deeper to obtain food... this is not possible because genetically animals are not programmed to mutate like that, that mutation would be specific to the individual and that means it will not be able to breed with anything else that exists, hence bringing about its extinction. The point of evolution is that the animal mutates slowly to suit the environment its within, those that mutate too slowly or not enough over a period of time as that particular environment spreads, they eventually become extinct.
Okay now I will move onto your next comment.
"Third! Man believes in God because of, history, archaeology, and the utter complexity and almost, impossibility of the universe. You have no historical facts that would lead you to believe man made God up. You could argue about the Greeks and their mythology, but I don't believe in the Greek gods either, so that's a lost cause. If you believe that we are ignorant to believe that the universe's complexity is the work of a supreme intelligent being, that's your opinion and we respect that. We don't agree with it, but we do respect it.
Fourth, we believe we are saved from spiritual death, and the eternal torment of hell."
Yes there is strong historical evidence to lead that man had created god, only within his own mind. If you study the Palaeolithic record, you will find that during the progression of evolution in this time, there was a significant change in the social order of humans (not Homo sapiens, other humans) and the development of primitive technology. However there were no burial methods, no cave paintings, and no sculptures of any deities or any religious artefacts. Its once Cro-Magnon’s evolved this came about (Cro-Magnon’s were only slightly different from the modern individual, from appearance alone they would be indistinguishable, they had however a more rigid bone structure, particularly at their joints, meaning that if you trained one to ballet or gymnastics and you pitted them up against a modern human, the modern human would have more fluid movements and would win the contest. They were also shorter than the average human and their bone structure was more suited for strength, so perhaps they would win a weight lifting contest), from 60,000 BCE and onwards you see historical evidence that God was created by our imagination. Previous species had a more limited imagination, as their brains had not yet evolved to our level of thinking and comprehension, hence why some tools and technology already existed, but there were no further advancements (particularly with the Neanderthals). From 60,000 BCE and onwards we begin to see cave paintings such as those in France, Lascaux and Chauvet (dating at 38,000 years old) However this is only in Europe, there are other cave paintings. We also see a rise in sculpture, small figurines, which do not appear to be human or animal such as the Venus of Willendorf, with exaggerated human features, particularly her sexually reproductive organs suggesting that it may have been a fertility idol. Some of these little figurines date back beyond 30,000 years, with a highly controversial one found in Israel that’s believed to be 300,000 years old (though I doubt it, it’s the only one of its kind and its likely to have been incorrectly dated due its very poor condition, and the fact homo sapiens were not around yet with their idealistic imagination). The point I am trying to make here is that humans were long worshipping other idols before this concept of a "one god" came about. Showing strong historical evidence that this idea evolved as societies evolved. And yes I can argue about the ancient Greek religion (my ancestors once worshipped them...but I am not Greek) but compare Christianity or even Judaism with other older religions and you will see how concepts have been borrowed and just changed accordingly over time, a little piece at a time that in the short run it doesn't seem like much (like the Vatican starting to use YouTube) but in the long run you will see the difference. One famous example is the story of Gilgamesh, a Sumerian half god, and his story of the "great flood", btw note that this religion pre-existed in tablets (evidence from the ruins of Babylon and Ur)long before Judaism did, and we see the connection with "Noah's ark", and that the story of the tower of Babel strongly coincides with historical evidence of the construction the Ziggurat in Ur (modern day Iraq), showing that these stories were borrowed and adapted overtime. And that the existence of this god did not come about a long time after thousands of other idols existed.
And as you say "Fourth, we believe we are saved from spiritual death, and the eternal torment of hell." Yes that was my point last time, when man become self-aware, and the aware of his eventual death, and decomposition of his body, mixed with his genetically programmed DNA of self-preservation, he came to the conclusion (sub-consciously out of fear) that he could still self-preserve himself if they believed that they had a spiritual form of themselves to continue living "heaven", and be saved from death. Hell was invented probably to establish some social order, to make sure crime was not committed and etc... A simple control measure in a society.
Also yes we do have verity on the types of skin and pigment mutations in our species, but because they are Asians, Africans, or whatever.. that doesn't mean they are different species, the pigment mutation would have occurred due to climatic constraints, human producing particular chemicals more often to be able to adapt, while also having the side effect of pigment mutation... but you are right... if these populations were isolated and had specific climatic difference over a very very long period of time then they would all eventually branch into different sub-species.
Now for your comment of Radioscope dating, this is only used for dating minerals and NOT fossils... remember that. Carbon dating is used for fossils... anyway to continue, Scientists estimate that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, based on radioisotope dating techniques. Before you judge the process you have to understand how this process works, you need to know a little bit about atoms and isotopes firstly.
Often, any one atom has several different forms, called isotopes. Atoms are made up of electrons, protons, and neutrons, and the number of electrons and protons determines the type of atom. Hydrogen, for example, has one electron and one proton. Sometimes, it also has a neutron, in which case it is called deuterium. Heavy water refers to water in which each hydrogen atom has a neutron.
Some isotopes, like deuterium, are stable; they're perfectly happy with the number of electrons, protons, and neutrons they have. Other isotopes are unstable because the different number of neutrons interacts with the other atomic components in such a way that, over a period of time, the isotope changes into some other atom. When these unstable isotopes change to a different atom, they emit radioactivity. For that reason, they're called radioisotopes.
An important property of radioactive isotopes is the half-life — the time it takes for half of the atoms to undergo the transition from one atom to the other. In the first half-life, half the atoms make the transition. In the second half-life, half of the remaining atoms transition, leaving one quarter of the original parent material. In the third half-life, half again transition, and so on.
To determine the age of material, researchers compare the ratio of the parent and daughter products that were initially in the sample with the ratio of these products at the current time. By doing so, they can calculate how much time has passed.
Numerous radioactive isotopes exist. One system that has been very successful in dating the ages of fossils is potassium-argon dating. Potassium is an extremely common element. Although most potassium isotopes aren't radioactive, one of them is, and one of its decay products is the gas argon.
Although potassium is a solid, argon is a gas. When rock is melted (think lava), all the argon in the rock escapes, and when the rock solidifies again, only potassium is left. The melting of the rock and releasing of any argon set the potassium-argon clock to zero. As time passes, argon accumulates in the rock as a result of radioactive potassium decay. When scientists analyze these rocks and compute the ratio of argon to potassium, they can determine how long it's been since the lava cooled. When scientists date rocks from our planet this way, the oldest dates they find are 4.5 billion years.
By dating the lava flows above and below a fossil find, scientists can put exact boundaries on the maximum and minimum age of that fossil.
With radioactive dating, scientists can now get within a few percentage points of the actual date. They know this because they have been able to accurately date lava flows that happened recently enough for their dates to be known historically, such as the eruption of Mount Vesuvius at Pompeii. And this coincides with Pliny the Younger’s account of the eruption, which he witnessed and dated.
And no thank you with the offer with the pastor, I actually come from a very strong Christian orthodox background and was baptised when I was young, I have read the bible and learnt enough about religion to be able to base what I have learnt with my current beliefs. My grandfather was a priest, and my uncle is also a priest, I have heard more than enough my share on religion. I was saying before that I would like to think there is a god, but in my personal opinion, I don’t believe God exists. Like I said, long ago before I read anything in detail about evolution I was very critical of it, however when I decided to read and observe I began to be swayed the other way. But perhaps most of all what swayed me is that of people suffering... especially children, who according to the bible are the innocent. So if they are innocent, then why do so many starve to death every year? Why do we see them on the streets begging for food, children orphaned, killed, mutilated, used as child soldiers, and forced into labour? I once walked the streets of my country (Macedonia) when I was young with my parents and we would see them starving, it was enough to bring tears to my eyes... and when my mother said something about one day god will help them or something... one man replied that there is no god, and if there was one, it shouldn’t be one that should be worshiped for letting the innocent suffer and die in the cruellest deaths imaginable... and when people say there is a god, go to those family which have lost their children in those circumstances and tell them that... I doubt you will get a positive response from them... But I am sorry... I turned from the path of religion a long time ago.
And there is perhaps the biggest point to be yet made... all modern science is based on the theory of evolution, and this is perhaps the biggest piece of evidence to support evolution. Because if this theory was faulty, then every consequent experiment conducted there onwards would have been faulty and no cures for diseases or any inventions would have been successful... the fact that they are successful and are proven to work says something about the theory of evolution itself. It wasn’t until the early 1990’s that it was globally accepted by the scientific community, and subsequently after this period, and within the next century we see the greatest technological advancements made in the whole of humankinds history. Within one century, more things we invented and cured than everything within the past combined. With exceptional advancements in medicine... my brother is on his way to becoming a doctor, he may be religious, but he has after extreme study and even taking part in international competitions (biology Olympiad) has accepted that without the theory of evolution, modern science and all its successes would not have been possible. Giving an extremely strong suggestion that the theory of evolution is true.
And onto my last point... going back to the human imagination inventing a god for self-preservation, and the concept of the “soul”/”spiritual being” determining a person’s personality. If you have noticed, psychology would not have been possible as a professional field and practice if this concept was still the dominant way of explaining why people have certain attitudes or behave a certain way... it’s only been after the theory of evolution that the field of psychology has picked up, and it has been producing results. While you had pastors or whoever that would claim a dysfunctional individual was possessed by the devil at the time... what I am saying is, if you read up on how the brain and mind works, you will be able to see how and why our imaginative component acts the way it does. Its primary purpose is self-preservation, followed by breeding to ensure survival of the species, but with the combine factor of imagination you get people seeking self-preservation at an immortal stage. They know they can’t stop themselves from dying, so they invent the concept of spiritually existing, yet as evolution has proved that it exists with the monumental success of modern science as its biggest piece of evidence, there has been no recorded or confirmed spiritual transpirations or any solid facts that this spiritual side exists... have you seen it? But I can see bacteria and other simple organisms mutate and evolve under a microscope, or record morphology, look at fossil evidence, radio scope dating, or many other processes, and see that they exist... and that they actually work...
Your are entitled to believe in what you want to believe in, but I believe that I am firmly set into this mindset, I have seen and read and studied enough of both sides to adequately make my own mind up. But thank you for the recommendations anyway. It’s good to see various people’s views on the topic, and keep on posting everyone. Thumbs up.
Pelagon
My apologies for calling you a pseudo intellectual, you seemed to come off as one upon first impression. First, I'd like to make it known that I do believe in evolution. I do believe in the slight variations over time. What I don't believe is the theory of common descent, the idea that we, and all vertebrates, came from ancient notochordal fish. I understand that science has found many fossils of humans. There are several, as pointed out by Doug (Life anyone?), that were faked, made from few human bones or other animals entirely. I'm not saying that all human skeletons that have been found have been forged, though I do wonder why these transitional humans are no longer extant. (Neanderthals, Homo erectus, cro-magnons, etc.) You could argue that there are many varieties of human today but we are still the same species. We are still homo sapien sapiens. Just a thought.
Now, the 'Palaeolithic record'. Hmhmhm... it's made by modern man. It's not historical. It's based only on the archaeological finds of ancient tools and cave drawings. Scientists 'date' them probably using carbon14 dating. Let me tell you something. All methods of dating are flawed. Carbon is recycled through the carbon cycle. It's also still unproven that it's decay rates are constant. They used the carbon dating method on a baby sea turtle and it dated back about 300 years old. It's unreliable, as is radioisotope dating as I said earlier.
I'm not an archaeologist, I'm a biologist. I'm not well informed about such histories. Thank you for asking me your questions though, I will make sure to call Pastours Chuck Smith, Don Stuart, and Brian Broderson on it. I know you just said you think you know enough on the subject to make up your own mind, but I'd rather hear their perspective on it. It will probably be helpful to you as well. Sorry I can't get you any thing right now to tide you over.
I am fully aware about how radiometric dating works. And fossils are one hundred percent NOT dated by carbon14 dating. Fossils are dated by how old the geological strata they are found in is. That in turn refers back to radioisotope dating. You still didn't give notice to the experiment I mentioned by Emery. His experiment concluded that isotopes can be changed to differ from what they would be dated to.
When you say that you really looked into it and doubt because of that, I completely understand. BUT! Shortly after I looked closer into the things that had me doubting. Atheists would call that being hard-hearted, but I call it being driven. I found faults with most things I was doubting about.
Alright, now is the hardest part. Suffering. I'm not the best Christian alright, I don't know the answers I don't study that much, I'm more focused on scientific topics. I've learned recently that both subjects are tied together. I'm going to have to study more and become more knowledgeable on both subjects. This probably isn't the same answer the pastors I mentioned earlier would say, they would probably say something much better. But this is the best I got, without suffering or tribulations what would be the point in worshiping God? The Chinese are arrested for worshiping God. My pastor said he talked with some man from China on the subject and said We're praying for you, but the man responded, "No, we are praying for you." It's tests and trials that bring us closer to God. It is because of things like this that you can share God's love with these people. I'm sure you could say that is simply a poor human philosophy. But that's what I personally believe. I could get you a better answer if you'd like. (Which I will.) It's always better to get different peoples perspectives on subjects. That's one of the reasons I'm on here. I occasionally get a good answer for something. I always look into it too. No I don't have all the answers... I really wish I did. No science doesn't have all the answers, and I'd really rather keep it that way. You in fact did have some good answers which knocked me while I wasn't looking. I promise I will have some better answers for you. Any more you want to talk about, you can contact me at kinitotherium@gmail.com The link most likely won't work so you'll probably have to copy it. It's getting late here too so I might 'ave just been too tired for your questions... I do have answers. But when religion gets tied into the questions as they usually do, I get thrown off. By the way, as Doug mentioned earlier, this blog is now being posted on this blog, http://lifeanyoneseniorblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/re-evolution.html
Actually, humans have been and still are evolving. Example: The Incas in South America. They've lived in the Andes for thousands of years, and because of the high elevation and extreme cold, they have developed a third more lung capacity and three times more capillaries then the average person. Also: When the some of first homo sapiens migrated from Africa to Northern Europe some 50,000 years ago, they slowly developed white skin to fit their environment. Think of polar bears or those white snow rabbits. Polar bears and snow rabbits didn't begin in snowy areas. They migrated there and adapted to their environment.
And also. In response to your first point: who says were getting better? Whats you're definition of better?
point two: the moon isn't as old as the earth. Either it broke off from the earth very early on, or some comet or asteroid hid the earth and got caught in its gravitational orbit
First off, in case you missed the memo, this conversation is being held elsewhere.
http://lifeanyoneseniorblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/re-evolution.html
Second, evolution is happening. That's obvious. What isn't obvious is the theory of common descent. It's also never been proven that polar bears and arctic hares were once migrators who adapted to that environment. I'm not saying that it's completely impossible, only that you shouldn't profess it as if it was fact. Third, it's never been proven that the moon isn't as old as the earth. Yes there are many theories about how the moon got here, but not all of them can be true at the same time. None have been proven, they do have evidence to back them up, but all theories do. It's very common for pseudo intellectuals, like yourself, to talk about such theories as if they are fact. It's a very foolish thing to do. Not trying to insult you, just giving you a heads-up.
"Evolution is one of those points of conjecture that has never been observed, nor can it be. We have witnessed adaptation within a species, but no-on has witnessed nor do they have evidence to support a claim that one species has or can evolve into another."
From Trebord, A Fellow Soldier
http://trebord.wordpress.com/2009/05/20/the-creation-of-evolution/
If all this turns out to be true then what? Nothing. You will still sit at home in front of the TV. If you're going to argue a point I hope something good comes from it.
Anonymous,
It's not clear what you were referring to. If evolution is true and creation is not, we had better find better ways to spend our pitiful existence than just watching TV. And if creation is true, some will still sit in front of their TVs and worship the gods and godesses of Hollywood. Others of us will look to the One who hung on Holy wood for our sins. The good that comes from Him is all that really matters and everything else will pass away.
Well put.
Can't God be the one who is helping evolution along? I can't see why God and evolution can't both exist?
Yeah, ya see, I've thought of that before but it doesn't make sense in a few ways. For example, for example, the Bible says all creatures in the sea and all the birds were created on the same day. This is where it doesn't make sense with evolution, this means that dolphins and bats were before land animals, whereas evolution says that they both descended from land living creatures. Also, for evolution to work, it requires natural selection. Even if God was in fact, guiding evolution along, it would require death, which is something else that didn't occur until after man. Some Christian evolutionists decide what parts of the Bible to believe, which is basically calling God a liar in my opinion.
Anonymous,
I like Stephan's answer and don't mean to contradict a single word of it... BUT... yes, God could be the power and force behind evolution. God can be/do anything He wants and it's not like we can constrain Him. That said though, why would He? It suggest He had no ultimate plan and just set things in motion, guiding them to where He wanted things to end up and then stopped the process (since we don't have evidence of ongoing evolution. To a Believer, that really makes no sense. As I struggled with creationist evolution years ago, I realized that God didn't need billions or millions of years to achieve His purposes. That's why many of us believe in a young Earth and add that God created a fully mature world. It would have appeared as fully formed, growing, and vibrant world--not some primordial mud puddle with single cell organisms waiting to evolve into higher lifeforms. That in itself makes no sense anyway--that lower lifeforms evolve into larger and more complex organisms and varied species.
Thanks. I like the answer you gave on the other blog and I think it's worth repeating my reply here for these readers. I don't mean to contradict a single word of what you said... BUT... yes, God could be the power and force behind evolution. God can be/do anything He wants and it's not like we can constrain Him. That said though, why would He? It suggests He had no ultimate plan and just set things in motion, guiding them to where He wanted things to end up and then stopped the process (since we don't have evidence of ongoing evolution. To a Believer, that really makes no sense. As I struggled with creationist evolution years ago, I realized that God didn't need billions or millions of years to achieve His purposes. That's why many of us believe in a young Earth and add that God created a fully mature world. It would have appeared as fully formed, growing, and vibrant world--not some primordial mud puddle with single cell organisms waiting to evolve into higher lifeforms. That in itself makes no sense anyway--that lower lifeforms evolve into larger and more complex organisms and varied species.
I would prefer to acknowledge that God "could" but then present an argument as why He probably did not.
While the world challenges us on how we can know the mind of God, there are some characteristics of His being that we can at least surmise from what He has revealed to us in His word. That said, it would seem unlike the God who has revealed Himself to us that he changes His mind or His plans. With the exception of mercy for those who repent or wrath for those who do not, we serve a God who is steadfast from the beginning of our time and beyond.
So along those lines and before someone else asks, yes, God can create a boulder so large and heavy that He cannot lift it, but then (1) why would He and (2) He would have to give up being God since there is nothing He cannot do. In other words, it is so outside of the character of God as revealed to us that we know that He could but would not stoop to a silly test of man to prove himself.
Lifeanyone,
Sorry for the repeat/expanded post. Maybe you can delete one? I meant to post it on Re-Evolution. Thanks.
hey bro, stop writing bs and go back to school.
get well.
Hey Miguel, if you're not smart enough to debate with us then don't resort to such primitive stratagies as cheap insults.
Maybe you should study harder :(
If college is too hard for you try dropping out and do something in your life that'll be productive and won't waste people's time trying to educate you.
PS.: I could debunk every single one of your WRONG assertions but it'll be a waste of my time. Watch thunderf00t's videos on Youtube titled 'Why Do People Laugh at Creationists.'
Very pious aren't we? But the sarcasm, very original. Most commend you sir.
Did I say college was hard? Maybe I did, maybe I didn't. But if I don't believe in anything I'm getting taught what would be the point of studying harder? To try to reeducate myself into believing something that I know isn't true? Cause that makes sense.
I only mentioned college because I find that it's weird that just about every class but math basis all kinds of dates and factual information on what is still defined only as a theory, not fact. I think this is dumb to base everything around something we're not 100% on. That's all I was trying to say when I wrote this blog in the first place, as I've mentioned many times before.
I welcome anyone who wants to waste their time and reeducate me because if they can prove this to me, to where I don't have any doubts at all to it, go ahead. I don't think it'll happen. If what I believe is incorrect and you can prove it, do go on, because I'd rather know my life is just an insignificant smear on the page of history then to live my life thinking that I matter and there is a God who loves me and cares about me.
You used PS on a comment to a blog? Okay...
You say that you don't have the time to debunk every WRONG assertions I have made? If you can, do it. Show me why there are mixed layers in the geological columns. Show me actual proof that my great, great something or another was a lower life form. Show me where all the gaps and missing links are. Show me that if there are laws that disprove the theory why it's still correct. Show me how all these seemingly perfect conditions occurred for everything to suddenly, randomly, and chaotically call itself to order. Show me for the first single cell that the theory of evolution needs to even get started came from.
I don't care if you are Darwin himself, if you say that this theory has no holes in it, then you are lying to yourself or you are so determined to have it down in your head that this is what's right that you're willing to accept things that you wouldn't normally given any other topic. I can't do that so I choose to believe in something else, that makes more sense to me and in this case as absurd as it may sound to some of you, this is why I believe in God. If God doesn’t exist and didn't create everything, then why do things happen that we can't explain? Does our fully evolved mind simply create feelings of comfort or contentment that people say are related to God? Do miracles happen because of random occurrences? Do they happen at all? If you choose not to believe in God that's your own prerogative, but at least do not stop asking the questions.
more contintued below...
From above...
I checked out thunderf00t. He has a lot of videos. I only watched two, because like you, I don't have the time right now. The two I watched were the first one and the thirtieth. From what I've seen, and this is just from those two videos, it looks like all does is take what people have said and call them out on it. In the ones I saw one guy had said that there was no water on other planets and the other was a guy saying that ID isn't Creationism. Don't really understand or see the joke about either, maybe because I'm one of the idiots, but statements people have made don't mean squat. Ice on other planets has nothing to do with God being the creator. I will try and watch more of this guy's videos if I get some time. I really will and get back to you on that. If these two videos though are just like all the others he isn't doing anything any different then say Stephen Colbert or Jay Leno when a presidential candidate says something. He's calling them out and there isn't anything wrong with that but do not dismiss the whole case because of something someone said. Realistically you could do this with Evolutionists too. For example Richard Dawkins who actually stated that it's possible that some higher life form planted the cell that started everything (he said this in an interview with Ben Stein in Expelled). That's ID is it not?
So I hope I addressed both Miguel and all the anonymous posters and I apologize for not replying that much on here. Though I did plan not to do it anymore.
Just don't stop asking question on sides of this. And don't just draw conclusions from what you've learned in class.
I have never read such unscientific hogwash. I don't even know where to begin: there are hundreds if not thousands of websites that would easily disprove everything you've written. Evolution and teh age of teh earth are no more debatable than the law of gravity is.
If you want to believe in god and unscientific miracles: go ahead. Say "OK, all the science is internally consistent and proves evolution occurred and the earth is 4.6 Billion years old, but that is just because god is testing me."
But don't quote scientific results you know nothing about, as it only makes you look ridiculous
Geez, you guys are like a broken record. All you do is tell me I'm an idiot because I don't belive the same as you do and then when I explain it all you do is call it hogwash and call me an idiot again.
Look. Once again. You say that you can prove me wrong, do it.
No I don't belive that God is testing me on this, because I have seen nothing that convinces me that it's true. I've looked at the facts. I'm not ill informed. I've done plenty of research. There isn't much else to say except I think you're wrong, and you think I'm wrong. If you can't calmly explain to me how I'm wrong without resorting to stupid backhanded comments then I'm going to keep on beliveing what I do and saying it's what I belive.
I'm not to trying to convert anyone with this blog. I'm just trying to point out holes and say what I belive. This is my blog, I reserve the right to say anything I want. If you have a problem with anything I've written there is no point in getting upset about and angerily keying in some insults about how stupid this all is. It's not helping your guy's case at all.
Also if you're going to reply please read the comments too. I know there are alot of them, it's just it feels like it's just the same thing over and over again. Also if you're going to reply please read the comments too. I know there are alot of them, it's just it feels like it's just the same thing over and over again. Or at least just look at the few comments above yours to see where we're at in the conversation.
Yes, this is how ridiculous you sound, Mr. Anonymous, "Hey you lot! Plenty of my dogmatic friends already proved this stuff wrong! I won't bother trying to do it myself but they really have done it! Really!"
Oi Doug, sorry for stooping to their level, mate. Hope ya can forgive me, but there's not much I can add when some bloke won't go as much to share his 'scientific genius'.
the biggest mistake man makes is thinking that he knows shit .
when he , in fact , knows absolutely nothing .
and this is valid for both sides . evolution and creationism .
we know shit about what happened 1 million years ago .
and we know shit about god or any other crap like that .
don't mean to be mean ... but instead of praying to god or discovering fossils maybe we should look to what the real issues are : pollution , starvation , lack of water .
god isn't gonna save us , and neither will evolution .
god is an illusion that allows us to slowly kill off our species .
think about that for a change .
Some guy with a brain,
intresting name first off.
I think I see your point and gotta say that I agree with you, somewhat. I agree that mankind dosen't know much on a big spectrum but I don't think that means that we know absolutly nothing.
It depends on which point you look at. A lot of scientists will say they know what happened 1 million years ago as it's shown by evolution and they think they're right. A lot of people will say that God created the world not that long ago and for those of us who belive this, we think we're right. So we have too conflicting points but each side thinks they're right. So then we must ask ourselves which side do we belive. Do we belive in Evolution, God, or something completly diffrent. Either one is wrong and one is right or niether are right and therefore all this arguing has been useless.
Perhaps our time could be better spent trying to solve the world's problems but I would argue that this beliefs could shape some of the world's problems. For example, do we belive in a God, who we can pray too and talk with and actually listens and guides the course of the where the world is heading or do we belive that this all happened by random circumstances and chance therefore meaning that we're all on our own and only rest in our strength. One gives hope that there's more to life and that it is worth living, the other just states that we live and die and in the end no one will remember our names.
So I'd say this is an important argument not only for those reasons. Comming from say the Christian view, we belive in a perfect God who made the world in seven days, then our great, great something or anothers screwed it up when they sinned, meaning that unless we sacrificed to God we were screwed. Then we belive that God sent us a way out so to speak in the form of His son. A lot of people will say that they can't belive in God because people will say He's a such a loving God but yet he will still send people to Hell. Hell was never meant for people. Hell was meant for sin. But people miss that God dosen't send anybody to Hell. We do it ourselves. God sent His only son so that who ever belived in Him could be saved. He sent His son to die in our stead. If we choose to reject Him that's our own fault.
So I'm not trying to be mean here but that's the main reason I kept this blog going. I don't care for arguement's sake but if this can impact somebody for God, that's fine with me. We are told that if we don't belive something that science says is correct then we are wrong. So through this blog, I'm trying to show that maybe not all of science is correct. Maybe we aren't wrong. I dunno know if this makes any sense at all, but I thought I should just say where I'm comming from on this.
The world is a sucky bad place. We are told it's the norm. But who makes it a sucky bad palce? People.
God isn't an illusion that allows us to slowly kill off our species, people may try to kill for that reason but who's fault is that? Gods or ours?
I just see it as a fair argument. Disagree or agree, it's your choice.
Gee Doug, you're beating me to these nowadays. First to mister 'some guy with a brain' I see in no way how belief in God would cause our species to die, in fact, Christian missionaries and charities are the ones bringing food to people around the world. WE are the ones who help orphans, and the homeless. I know you could argue that there are some atheist organizations, but for every one you could name, I'd name ten. Conclusion, belief in a solid, real God is potential to our survival. (In more ways than one.)
Also, scientists may claim to know about what has happened millions of years ago, but the actual idea that the earth is even one million years old has not been proven. Oh sure, they might have proved it with faulty, unreliable dating methods, but science has no way of knowing as of right now.
I'm not discrediting the idea that God couldn't have taken longer than six literal days to make the universe. In fact, I was discussing Genesis with a Pastor, and he said that the Hebrew word that was translated to 'days' could have meant more than seven days. However, he also said that there is no indication that should lead us to assume it was more than six literal days.
That is all, for now.
Denton is out.
Evolution is real dude. What you think we just magically popped out of nowhere with all the features we have. Different types of people Asians, Mexicans, Whites, Blacks are all a product of Human evolution. Homo has only been around for roughly 150,000 years and already developed different forms. Don't You see the evolution in that? When a white and a black mate. The best traits get passed on. Give it another .5 million years and I'm sure you'll have a completely different looking Human. What about all the new strains of Flu that never existed before but now do? That's evolution. What about the Small Pox virus? That doesn't exist anymore. Doesn't mean you are gonna find it fossilized in the dirt everywhere now. Yes Micro Organisms are found fossilized. Fossilized organisms were found on Mars. Evolution is a real phenomenon.
Dude, You're right! Evolution does occur. Any old bloke could see that. But the idea that we all evolved from prehistoric, notochordal fish-worms, is NOT proven. But hey, living organisms can change color over time! Clearly birds evolved wings the same way! And tetropodomorphs evolved lungs! And molecules randomly evolved organs and eyes.
The idea that Hominids have been around for hundreds of thousands of years, is based purely on speculation. Micro organisms have not been found on Mars. Scientists found worm-looking structures in the soil and got excited. Your President at the time, Clinton was even going to give a speech that they had discovered extra terrestrial life. But further study proved they didn't.
Dear Mr. LifeAnyone,
This is probably totally random. But hey, I think you make a really good thesis on the topic of evolution.
Of course it ain't perfect, or never will be, but it's a pretty good thesis and most of the things you said are reasonably true.
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
If you want anymore specific information or anything, you know?
Anyways, I just thought you were a very nice guy, you may act a little harshley to the people who comment in an audacious manner, but then again, they're being rude, but you're a very nice guy. I guess?
Have a wonderful day. And God is with us.
-Denim
Denim,
Thanks for the comment, I really appriate it.
I never really meant to come off as harsh to anyone posting it just get's frustrating comming home and seeing your inbox full with messeges calling you an idiot and such.
I never meant to be mean (just simply "aggresivly sarcastic")but if I was to anybody on here my sincerest appologies because that isn't right of me to do.
Thank you for the link, it has some very intresting information on it, actually a lot of information on it. I mean I hadn't even touched the surface of this discussion.
So once again thank you for the comment and I hope that you'll be able to keep up with this diccusion too.
Thought I was the harsh one...
Post a Comment