Evolution: The Berkeley Gulp of Theories

"Oh why did I draw that silly chart in the first place!"

Source

Some say Leaky got It wrong!

Source

Some of my followers wanted me to write another fishing hub, so....

I am quite certain that this article will confuse the heck out the “Goggle Spiders” and they will be piddling all over themselves trying to figure out what kind of adds to place! For those who are not familiar with the term “Goggle Spiders,” I am referring to the software that Goggle uses to search out tag words so “they” will know what adds to place in the published hub. Now, for those who do not do much fishing, when I speak of Berkeley Gulp I am referring to a state-of-the art “artificial” bait designed by one of the most innovative fishing companies known to man! This company makes the claim that Berkeley Gulp even “out fishes live bait”! Well, it is pretty good...But I still prefer the real McCoy.

Okay, so the reason I state this is to illustrate a point I want to make about my view about the theory of evolution. The point is that evolution to me is a cleaver and convincing counterfeit to the real way that life have began on earth. Yes it is clever and convincing and yet, it is incorrect! It may be close, but it is no cigar! Before I continue, let me state that I am not opposed to science, for I feel that in the final analysis, science will point to God! I just do not agree fully with the conclusions that many scientist have come to.



The origianl "Big Bird"? Or original "Big Hoxes?"

"They" use to say Archaeorapror was the missing link, until...It was proven to be a fraud! So "They" were wrong AGAIN!
"They" use to say Archaeorapror was the missing link, until...It was proven to be a fraud! So "They" were wrong AGAIN! | Source

The One True God Vs Father Time and Mother Nature

This is how I perceive the debate between the Creationist and Evolutionist; some of the Creationist are like a group of eight-year-old girls in pigtails while the Evolutionist are like eight-year-old boys with Denis the Minis haircuts, wearing spenders with slingshots hanging out of their back pockets. The Creationist are chanting “Na-Na-Na, Na, evolutionist worship Father Time and Mother Nature!” While the Evolutionist are shouting “no we don’t evolution is just a theory!” Even so, the evolutionist are now claiming that they have proven the Big Bang Theory and all that is left to do is figure out what caused the Big Bang in the first place.

But I say “not so fast” because before evolutionist can stick a fork in their beloved theory and call it done, they have to explain were time came from, unless time its self is the creator! For without massive amounts of time the whole theory sinks like the Titanic to the bottom of the sea! I just cannot buy that life is just a “happy accident” that was caused because of a bunch of lucky breaks happening though out the drawn out process of evolution!

Let us take the moon for example; the most popular theory is that a comet hit the earth at just the right angle and BAM instant moon! Then this happened time and time again with all the planets that are known to have moons! All I got to say is, all them comets must have been “holding their tongues right” to hit these planets “just so” time and time again! Well here is yet another theory, what if God has allowed men though science to start to discover some of the principles behind they way God chose to create the world? Also, what if Satan has been allowed to distort these principles and repackage them in a way that would appear to support the theory of evolution?

After all, Satanists believe strongly in evolution! They believe that men are slowly evolving to become gods themselves! To prove my point, I will quote the High Priest of The First Church of Satan John Alee. It is interesting to note, that Mr. Alee does not believe in the Big Bang, instead it was Order and Ciaos that started the whole evolutionary process! So here what this self-proclaimed High Priest has to say on the subject of evolution…. “The first cause is not an explosion like the so-called Big Bang but the emergence of Chaos and Order. Satan the male principle is Chaos personified. Babylon, the female principle, is Order personified”.

I guess it makes as much since as mater and anti mater smacking into each other! I also get a kick out of Babylon being considered the representation for Order! Were the heck did he get that idea? Is he saying that the spirit of Babylon existed at the very beginning of time? Yep, just as the Bible keeps harping on the evils of Babylon and uses it as metaphor for every form of depravity known to man, most Satanist use this ancient city as a metaphor for there own roots!

Now I think it would be fun to take a look at how the UFO buffs perceive evolution to support their concepts on how life began. For I think the argument is strong to say that there have been many who buy into “the aliens intervened with the evolution process to allow humans to evolve much quicker” perception have turned it into a form of religion. How I came to this conclusion is that these UFO enthusiast claim that humans were assisted by this advance race of extraterrestrial that must gotten help in their evolutionary advancement, or did God create them first? Speculation after speculation in both the “pure” evolutionist and the “alien assisted” evolution camp with no absolute conclusions being presented. By the way, the first camp, the “scientific” camp has a long history of fraud and miscalculations in the time line in which they built their theory! Oh but that is just plane human error and does not mean that their form of “educated guessing” is wrong (LOL)!


This therory has been debunked but I still like the video!

Giant impact Hypothesis- something must of held its tounge right! (Artist Joe Tucciaro)
Giant impact Hypothesis- something must of held its tounge right! (Artist Joe Tucciaro) | Source

Is God an Evolutionist?


Now do these scientific minds have any theory on the purpose behind evolution and the end results of evolution? Or are they just making it up as they go along and hoping for the best? My opinion is that when you take a look at the history of the human race, there appears to be an unseen force guiding it and influencing the outcome of certain events.

Case in point, the race to create a weapon to end World War II, the atom bomb, when the whole concept of splitting the atom was first tested; there were many theories to what might happen as a result of the experiment. One possibility was that the whole atmosphere of planet earth would catch on fire! My theory is that the reason why this did not happen is that God was directing it from behind the scenes! He allowed these events to happen just the way they did! Of course the arrogance of man thinks that scenario is foolish for man has evolved to a point in which he does no longer need to acknowledge the existence of God!

In my last commentary on evolution I was criticized for the fact that I saw men as separate from the animals and that I should look at all life as being divine. This is of course is the view of pagans and those who worship nature. The natural world is amazing and yet, it has been flawed by sin entering the world. Only the one true God that created it is truly divine! I was also asked if I had something against apes and other primates since I refuse I believe that man evolved from them! That is just like asking me if I have something against primordial soup because I do not believe that was the way that life began! Primates are wonderful creatures but they are not my ancestors! Just like in the artificial lure Berkeley Gulp, it is close to real live bait but it is not and never will be live bait!

I keep on hearing how “scientific” evolution is and yet what it really is, is scientism! For when the Discovery Channel or National Geographic Channel say the world is so many million years old as if it is absolute is NOT TRUE SCIENCE! True science is when one will say, “as far as we can determine, we believe that earth is so many million years old". But that is not what these channels say they speak in absolute certainty! To stress this point, let us look at what the definition of scientismand the definition of science. There is, by the way quite a lot of difference between the two!

Science: “The study of the physical world and its manifestations, especially by using systematic observation and experiments.”

Scientism: "The belief that science alone can explain phenomena.”

In the definition of scientism two words stand out, belief and alone . It makes it sound like something beyond a theory, beyond “systematic observation and experiments.” Almost like it is something that is absolute or written in stone! The word scientism has nice ring to it, don’t you think? Maybe, it might even be a good name for a…. (Wait for it) A RELIGION!

How life is said to evolve is though a mutation of a species –but what is the cause of that mutation and what is it within a species that signals it to adapt? If you watch movies like The X Men the message that is conveyed is that humans will somehow mutate to a point that they will have super powers, but were is the evidence of this happening? Is this not another way of proclaiming that men will evolve to the point of being gods? In my commentary on my view that aliens and demons are one and the same, I speak of subliminal messages and subtle mind control that I believe is being promoted in our society.

Another concept that I want to present here as I hinted to in my Evolution of Evolution hub is that God Himself is an evolutionist! This means that he created the life on this planet to adapt to environmental changes. He allowed life to compensate for the fact that sin entered the world! In fact, His plan is that this corrupt world will be destroyed and once again a new and perfect world will take its place! So there it is, imperfect evolution that leads who knows were, versus God’s plan of salvation that leads to eternity with the one who designed us in the first place!



More by this Author


Comments 119 comments

Lone Ranger 5 years ago

HVW:

I am glad to see that you have not been taken in by the great lie of macro-evolution. Micro-evolution, on the other hand, seems legit in most cases especially when addressing the subject of variation within species. But, one species changing from one form to another is nothing more than science-fiction and is intellectually dishonest.

If the scientific community had any integrity at all or even a fair degree of shame, they would have admitted that the coelacanth caught in the Indian Ocean in 1938 toppled their house of cards. The coelacanth, which they claimed to have been extinct for 70 million years, looked just like the ones found in the fossil record and this should have blown the lid off evolutionary theory.

The implication of finding a living creature thought to have been extinct for tens of millions of years, and one that has shown no signs of mutating or evolving during this time suggests, once again, that macro-evolution is nothing more than fool's gold and science fiction.

Of course, the "scientific" community brushed this cataclysmic defeat off their shoulders, like water off a duck's back, and with their ship of fools, set sail once more to Fantasy Island, where they could recoup their losses, heal their bruises, and with the help of spin doctors and think tanks, came up with something clever to say, hoping to ease the pain of their ardent admirers and mindless devotees.

In all my years studying evolution, I have only met one enlightened individual who looked twice at this wayward theory. From one professor to the next, they follow their mentors like sheep following a shepherd. They never question it; like children following the Pied Piper, they foolishly sing and march in unison as they travel to the promised land, but in reality, it is just a fool's paradise.


PDXBuys profile image

PDXBuys 5 years ago from Oregon

That Julia Child video was awesome! I had not seen it before.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Hello my good friend Lone Ranger! I call you my friend for I always look forward to your insights and which you would write some hubs for you have much knowledge on many subjects!

Thanks for dropping in PDXBuys, yes I really enjoyed that video and I am glad that you did as well!


Rod Marsden profile image

Rod Marsden 5 years ago from Wollongong, NSW, Australia

Sorry. I still don't buy it. I do believe in evolution and will continue to do so.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Ok! that's cool...why?


Rod Marsden profile image

Rod Marsden 5 years ago from Wollongong, NSW, Australia

There is a lot to do with evolution that can be proven with today's science that could not have been proven in the 19th Century. The idea that complex creatures just suddenly, magically appeared is absurd. The idea that man just suddenly, magically appeared is ludicrous. Sure there have been hoaxes in the past and there may be hoaxes in the future but there is also real science.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

That some day will be proven wrong! Not only that were did time come from? Since the whole concept relies on time....And by the way it time for me to go to bed!


Lone Ranger 5 years ago

Macro-evolution is science fiction. Please show me in the fossil record, or anywhere else, where there are creatures in the midst of evolving. If devotees of evolutionary theory are correct, there must be millions of specimens in the midst of evolution, even as we speak! We should have millions of creatures in different stages of evolution right here and now, not to mention within the fossil record, but instead we see squat!

Carbon 14 dating is just one method of dating out of 90. It is, however, the one method that yields the highest numbers most frequently and it requires certain assumptions in order for it to be valid. These assumptions are speculative at best, while others are known to be false. Hence, the reason why it is the favorite dating method of evolutionary "scientists".

An example of carbon 14's unreliability is in its ability to produce wild-ass extremes which was clearly seen 15-20 years ago when "scientists" used this dating method on fresh oysters off the eastern seaboard which yielded an age of 2 million years. No wonder science has not discovered a cure for cancer yet, not with dead-heads like this at the helm. How can these mental midgets hope to lead humanity toward truth, when they begin with a faulty premise? How can these so-called scientists be trusted to lead humanity into the future, when they employ the WAG method(wild-ass guesses) to fill in the blanks?

It has been said that scientists today "would not have seen it, if they first hadn't believed it". This is to say that one must believe in evolutionary theory as a pretext, and this belief then clouds everything that is seen including the willful observance of things that aren't there.

It truly is sad when the majority of scientists pin their life's work, hopes, dreams, and discoveries on mass hysteria and hallucinations from within the scientific and academic communities.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Your preaching to the quire with me, Lone Ranger! Like I said before you should write some hubs, for you express things really well and with a great since of hummer.

Once upon a time scientist believed that maggots came directly from spoiled meat until they realised that flies were laying eggs in the meat. You should read my hub "The Evolution of Evolution" for I go into more details on some of the things you speak of. This hub is a response to some of the criticism I received at that time!


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

By the way Rod, man does not magically appear, he is created!Just like every thing else is! The idea that life sprang up out of some kind of special soup is what is ridicules!


Rod Marsden profile image

Rod Marsden 5 years ago from Wollongong, NSW, Australia

Well, change is all around us and is part of us. The Chinese say you cannot cross the same stream twice. Why not? Change. You change and so does the stream. Science teaches us that the fertile Sydney basin was once at the bottom of a great body of water. The proof can be found in Sydney shale. Occasionally, you will find in the shale the remnants of sea creatures that could not have lived on land.

Life did not spring up from some kind of soup. It evolved within the soup, changing as time went on.

Don't look now but you are changing, evolving. You are getting older. It has been noted that Anglo-Saxons are generally taller today than their Victorian ancestors. Why? Generally better diet might account for much. But change is all around you. Even the seasons change or we wouldn't have seasons. Change makes sense therefore evolution makes sense. If there is a God it seems to me that he's not in the habit of creating complex life forms with the snap of his fingers though I am sure he could if he really wanted to. It seems to me God isn't as concerned with time the way we humans are concerned.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Like I said, I believe that even God is a evolutionist for He allows life to adapt to consent changes! I do not debate change or even evolution- just science conclusion about how life happens. so are you saying you believe in God? I a agree with you, God is not concerned with, or perceives time as we do and yet...it is time that is part of the formula for evolution at least according the evolutionist!


magnoliazz profile image

magnoliazz 5 years ago from Wisconsin

God made man in his own image, thats all I have to know. God makes it real simple in black and white.

I ask the evolutionists where that missing link is?

They have been looking for it all these years and so far they have come up with nothing. Sure, a few years back they came up with a skull and some bones that looked like a small monkey and tried to call that the missing link, then after awhile they said they were wrong.

If people spent just one month close to nature, they would begin to understand that life is way too complicated to just come from no where with no intelligent and guiding force behind it. Come on, are you really serious when you see a new baby and you think that came from an ape? Its ridiculous. And by the way, if that were true, then we would see ape/humans all over the place evolving. And all kinds of other animals evolving from one to another as well, so far nothing of the sort has ever been documented, yet the masses believe in this garbage.

One day science will prove that the Bible was right all along, and I think that day is coming soon.

A great hub, thanks for all your hard work Highvoltage writer. Great job!


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

For my next trick I will do a hub on how science is proving the affects of prayer on the brain and is just one of the ways science will point back to God! Don't miss this one, it will be called "This Thing Called Faith" and will be published in the next week! Oh by the way, thank you Magnolia for dropping by!


Rod Marsden profile image

Rod Marsden 5 years ago from Wollongong, NSW, Australia

Yes, a person's belief system does affect that person's brain. A belief that something is holy can make people do extraordinary things. Christian relics have been said to cure the faithful of all sorts of ills but the question is where does the cure come from. The body is well equipped to handle a lot of life's problems. If stress is reduced then the body has a better chance of coping against just about any disease. In the middle ages it was discovered that if a person is stressed out with pain and they are put to sleep for a while then the body's own healing process had a better shot at doing its thing. Gone are the days when we blithely follow a king holding the sacred blade that pieced Jesus into battle and expect this sacred blade to actually do something. Hitler believed in the power of the spear of destiny but it didn't do much for him.

Magnolia, evolution doesn't happen over night and there has to be a reason for it to happen at all. As for humans evolving, I do believe this is happening. In Europe, Australia and the USA white Anglo-Saxon types are becoming taller. This is evident from the homes made in the Victorian age and earlier. Check out Doc Martin. The actor comes close to whacking his head on the low ceiling of his dwelling/surgery numerous times. Why? Victorian ancestors were generally shorter and so Victorian homes were generally made for shorter people to dwell in. You will also find quite a difference in height between present day Japanese and the Japanese of the early 20th Century. Evolution in action? Possibly. Better diets generally in the present 21st Century? I would say so. Will that change in time? I am afraid it will.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

The Christian relics do not cure anyone, it is the power of FAITH that does the healing! Also, the body's ability to heal to me proves there is a God that has created the body to be able to cope when things go wrong! The Anglo-Saxon becoming taller is interesting and yet the population in the U.S.A is getting heaver because of diet, is also evolution? You still did not answer my question Rob, do you believe in God? For it appears you may believe in God as long as it is on your terms!


Rod Marsden profile image

Rod Marsden 5 years ago from Wollongong, NSW, Australia

I am an agnostic so I believe in the possibility of God. I can't say I believe in creationism. In fact the more creationism I come across the less likely I am to fully believe in God.

I have never believed in Christian relics being able to do anything except provide money for the church from the faithful. Martin Luther was against the church of his day accumulating wealth through relics. I can see his point. I don't believe indulgences do anything either. But you can imagine that relics do something and you can imagine that scrolls or what not from the pope also do something if you like. No point in starting another Protestant revolution.


magnoliazz profile image

magnoliazz 5 years ago from Wisconsin

Hello Rod, Anglo Saxons are becoming taller? My grandfather was 6 foot 3, and I am 5 foot 9. In the 1600s, Scandinavian men were an average of 6 foot 2, and women were average 5 foot 8. Not much has really changed there at all, and it does not matter how great the food is, if you have genes that say you are only going to be 5 foot 6, thats all the taller you are going to be, unless there is a genetic mutation. You know that one guy from China who is a basketball player? He is a genetic mutation. His environment had nothing to do with it. The environment had nothing to do with Scandinavians being taller either, there was a mutation in the population and that person successfully passed that mutation along, same thing goes for blue eyes. In fact everyone with blue eyes is related to each other, and it had nothing at all to do with their environment.

I do not dispute changes within a species, I dispute one species turning into another, and if that were true we would see that in the fossil record. So far there is nothing at all, after all these years. No chimps turning into gorillas, no wolves turning into hyenas, it just does not happen. Even bacteria does not turn into something else. I can't believe that science even supports this any longer, it just does not make any sense.


Rod Marsden profile image

Rod Marsden 5 years ago from Wollongong, NSW, Australia

Isn't this something, M arguing FOR evolution rather than against it. Cheers!

Nope! Darwin does not say one species will turn into another species. There is always a connection to the past within the altered creature. You have birds and lizards laying eggs. Two missing links in the animal kingdom are the platypus and the echidna. They are found in Australia.

What advantage would there be to the wolf if he did turn into a hyena? No advantage either in a chimp turning into a gorilla since the gorilla will face extinction way before the chimp will. Mind you chimps do have their problems as well.

Actually bacteria does mutate. It can, given time, adapt itself to new situations. Mind you, there are examples of bacteria that haven't changed in eons. There is a form of bacteria that can live in ice. So long as there's ice and it can get food it need not change at all.

I can't see why creationism still exists. Until I visited the hubs I thought only backward Bible bashers living in America's south believed in that sort of unscientific nonsense. I thought the day of the monkey trial were over. Hey! You can have science and you can have religion. No need for religion to get so uptight about real science.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Ah yes, the Platypus (I just love that name) a mammal that lays eggs has the bill of a duck and web feet with a fangs! When it was first discovered scientist thought it was made up! God must of had fun when He made that one! But "missing link?" From reptile to mammal with some aspects of the birds thrown in? Real science? Are you sure it is not Scientism? In fact I been kind of waiting for you to pass around the offering plate for your new religion!


Rod Marsden profile image

Rod Marsden 5 years ago from Wollongong, NSW, Australia

Real religion isn't science just as real science isn't religion. Creationism therefore isn't real science but a bent form of religion. And yes the platypus really does exist. There are zoos that have them here in Australia.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Yes. the platypus is real, all I was saying is that beck in the day when the early explorers first introduced the remains of the animal back in Europe there were scientist that thought they were a fake! This whole article was written to illustrate that evolution still takes faith to believe in the whole process-just as much faith as any religion...but some how you are not getting it!


Rod Marsden profile image

Rod Marsden 5 years ago from Wollongong, NSW, Australia

Well I do have faith that there are scientists out there smarter than I am. I can't tell you how to put together an atomic bomb but I know they are real. Is that what you mean by faith? Sure I have that. I understand enough about evolution to know that it is real. I know enough about creationist stuff to know that it is a put on and just an attack on Darwin's ideas and nothing more.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

"Science: “The study of the physical world and its manifestations, especially by using systematic observation and experiments.”"

This is the dirty little secret that evolutionists either ignore or don't know... the science they cling to is obligated, by definition, to explain everything in the physical world using only the physical world.


Rod Marsden profile image

Rod Marsden 5 years ago from Wollongong, NSW, Australia

Not much of a secret if you know about it, nicomp. Not much of a secret if it is taught in high schools in both Australia, New Zealand and Britain and has been taught for generations.

Even if it might be a secret in the deep south of the USA it is not a secret evolutionists ignore at all or even regard as a secret. Evolutionists are basically scientists or those who trust and believe in science and the physical world. The spiritual world has nothing to do with evolution.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Rod you are proving yourself to being a moron, for there are Hindus, Buddhist AND Satanist who do believe in a form of evolution and yet also believe in the spiritual. The Greeks were the originators of the basics of evolution, and they also embraced spiritual concepts! By the way I grew up in California, not the deep south and I can tell you that I met many scientist and educated people who do not buy the theory of evolution.

You make the retarded claim that creationist are only about attacking Darwin like Darwin is a Patent Saint of evolution or something! Darwin was diffidently not the only scientist that was working on the theories of that Darwin made famous, didn't you know?

Reread my The Evolution of Evolution hub, you may learn something and I don't want to hear from you again until you have something intelligent to say!


Rod Marsden profile image

Rod Marsden 5 years ago from Wollongong, NSW, Australia

You are the one who wants to mix up religion with science not me. Hindus, Buddhists and Satanists are not necessarily scientists and why should they be? What they believe concerning the spiritual life is fair enough to me but nothing to do with science unless, of course, they wish to put science into the equation. If they do then they are dealing with verifiable information on the physical world.

Sure, the Greeks understood change and they understood the basics of science.

Well, I never said the deep south was the only place in the USA that had dodgy scientists. I suppose there are enough to go around.

Creationists came after Darwin soon after he came up with his ideas and they are still coming after him. It seems they have nothing better to do.

Yes, I do know that Darwin had his contemporaries who were also experts in their own various fields of science. I also know that there is some controversy as to whether Darwin was the first scientist to come up with the theory that now carries his name.

Well I have been intelligent and have written intelligently.

It is a rather sad thing that a country as powerful as the USA has these bible bashing pseudo scientists running around with planned for the future than to attack those far better than they will ever be at science. That is all I really do have to say to you.


Rod Marsden profile image

Rod Marsden 5 years ago from Wollongong, NSW, Australia

Oh, and California should be nice this time if year. Go back there, get out and about, see a bit of nature, get some sun, relax on a beach. It might do you a world of good. And that is definitely all I really have to say.


Lone Ranger 5 years ago

High Voltage:

Thank you for such a thought provoking hub! Please do not become discouraged by those who are brainwashed; waking up out of a deep sleep can make one cantankerous.

Indeed, within my experience the less a person understands a concept, the more impressed they are by it and the less likely they will abandon a belief or concept that is based on blind faith. Knowledge is empowering and truth is illuminating, but a fool chooses to walk with folly.

In all the years I have been around academia, I have never met an evolutionist that actually understood the complexities of life or the incredible genius and "workmanship" that forged the cells of the smallest life forms, let alone the major complexities of, for instance, the human eye. But, this does not stop them from talking as if they do.

It is easy for some to ignore facts and trip over the truth when they have no clue how things actually work or what it would take for evolution to exist. Limited knowledge allows alternatives to the truth to thrive in a society that places little value on truth.

In this regard, possibilities and theories abound that should never have seen the light of day or have been given a second thought. As Albert Einstein said, "The difference between stupidity and genius, is that genius has its limits."

God's blessings to you and your's and keep up the good work!


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands

Hi Highvoltagewriter :)

An interesting read!

I am not a scientist, but there are some very experienced, educated and intelligent scientists out there, who state that the 'theory' of evolution is as factual as any fact can be.

The scientists have me pretty much convinced.

They, mostly, admit that science does not have all of the answers ~ yet. This is a realistic attitude.

I see no reason to question the evidence that we humans are descended from great apes and that we are closely related to chimpanzees. It is clear for us to see.

Is there a guiding force to the Universe?

If so, could we call it 'God', or 'Mother Nature', or 'The Law of Physics'?

The truth is that we do not know everything ~ neither do the scientists ~ but that certainly does not mean that the Bible is a realistic alternative to scientific theories.

There is still a 'gap' ~ right at the beginning ~ and this may be the most important mystery ~ ie where are how and why did life originate in the first place?

This is connected to, but separate from, evolutionary theory.

Does it mean that the book of Genesis is true? ~ No.

Does it mean that God exists? ~ I don't know ~ but, even if he does, it's not going to be God as described in the Bible.

Does it mean that angels and devils exist? ~ No, of course not ~ why should it?

Evolutionary theory is nothing, whatsoever, to do with Satanism.

Satanism isn't even Satanism, any more. It is just a movement that criticises Christian beliefs. There is no Satan. Not even modern Satanists believe in him.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands

Hi again :)

Highvoltagewriter wrote: "without massive amounts of time the whole theory sinks"

But there has been plenty of time ~ millions of years!

Highvoltagewriter wrote: "True science is when one will say, “as far as we can determine, we believe that earth is so many million years old. But that is not what these channels say they speak in absolute certainty!"

Yes, if there is doubt, but surely they are allowed to speak with certainty about the certainties.

Should they say “as far as we can determine, baby birds develop inside eggs?" ~ No, because that is clear and obvious to all.

But there are some things that are clear and obvious to all those who have studied the subject, and it is not their fault if non-experts do not believe them, or do not understand them.

Yes, many things are open to question, and scientists, by their very nature, accept that new information, new experiments, new ideas, etc, etc, will result in changes in their 'knowledge', but there is so much evidence about birds growing in eggs, and the age of the earth, that, while new information may come along, it is not likely that it will have huge and fundamental effects on their conclusions to date.

OK, some scientists may not like to be challenged ~ but that is what science is all about ~ making new discoveries.

And some 'scientists' seem to be Christians, who have deliberately taken a degree, in order to debunk their own subject and promote the Bible. This seems immoral to me. :)

Genesis does not stand up to the scrutiny that science has to experience.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands

Lone Ranger wrote: "If the scientific community had any integrity at all or even a fair degree of shame, they would have admitted that the coelacanth caught in the Indian Ocean in 1938 toppled their house of cards. The coelacanth, which they claimed to have been extinct for 70 million years, looked just like the ones found in the fossil record and this should have blown the lid off evolutionary theory."

This is not how it works.

Creatures evolve for various reasons; one is to adapt to its environment.

If the creature is perfectly suited to its environment, then there is no need for it to change. Thus some creatures exist, today, which are identical, or almost identical, to creatures which existed millions of years ago.

On the other hand, some will have adapted to fit changing environments ~ or may have evolved because of a mutation.

It is perfectly possible for one type of creature to remain practically unchanged in some areas and very much changed in others.

* * * *

PS. Evolution is not really about the 'Big Bang' and the origins of life


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Hay Trish! I just read your hub on Ghost and what not( I forgot the title) and I enjoyed it much! I always look forward to your insights for you truly have a open mind! now about the fish that Lone Ranger was referring to, you wrote... "If the creature is perfectly suited to its environment, then there is no need for it to change. Thus some creatures exist, today, which are identical, or almost identical, to creatures which existed millions of years ago." The problem is that the coelacanth appears to be designed (oh my bad, I meant to say evolved) for shallow water, much like the "walking catfish" but was found in deep water! Ether created or designed it seems strange to find them at such depth.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands

Hi :)

Well, it may have adapted just enough ~ either way, as long as it's content as, and where, it is, there's no need for major change. :) You're right, though, it certainly is an interesting creature!

Glad you enjoyed my new hub :)


Lone Ranger 5 years ago

Dear Trish:

I can tell you are a good person and have a good heart and with what I am about to say, please know that I do not mean to diminish your character or intellect in any way.

Having said that, please understand that scientists are people like you and me and they understand slightly more than the average person and sometimes even less. Some of the most ignorant people I have ever met have PHd's.

The acronym (PHd) stands for "Piled Higher and Deeper". The reason for this is that many of these professors and scientists have become so indoctrinated into a belief system that they keep adding one bad idea onto another until they are all up to their necks in cow pies.

If scientists and professors didn't place a "Dr" or "Phd" in front of their names or behind it, as the case may be, or even wear white lab coats for photo shoots, it would be hard for the public to buy into many of their twisted theories and opinions. But, these credentials are meant to give scientists credibility and authority and many people are impressed with them and place their trust in them as a result.

At the end of the day, that is pretty much all it is - a person in a white lab coat, hiding behind credentials, who offers a personal opinion under the guise of "science", which is often based more on guess work and self-serving biases than on actual knowledge.

Truth be known, some scientists come up with incredible theories in order to get in the papers, hence making a name for themselves. Then the little media hound goes about trying to make his/her theories come true by skewing all known evidence, research, and studies in order to make it happen. You would be surprised how academically dishonest, unethical, and how corrupt the scientific community really is.

In the end, science is a faith-based system not much different from other world religions. And although macro-evolution makes sense to you, it is only because you have been conditioned to accept it without questioning its ridiculous premises.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Right on LR! You hit the nail on the head when you said..."In the end, science is a faith-based system not much different from other world religions. And although macro-evolution makes sense to you, it is only because you have been conditioned to accept it without questioning its ridiculous premises." This sums up the point I have been trying to present in this article!


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands

With all due respect, Lone Ranger, Science is not a faith based system.

I appreciate that scientists are people, like you and me. However, I would assume that, if you or I had studied a subject, in depth, for many years, then we would know more about it than the average person. And I would hope that this would be acknowledged, respected and valued.

Of course scientists are not perfect. Of course they may make mistakes. Some may even be charlatans.

However, the scientists, whom I refer to, are highly educated, highly intelligent people, who have made it clear how and why their research is very likely to be correct.

Their conclusions are far more logical than those of the creationist.

Furthermore, most creationists do not seem to have a problem accepting other scientific benefits. They don't call medicine and electricity, etc, 'twisted theories and opinions'.

I have not been 'conditioned' to accept anything without question. It is very insulting to suggest that I have. And evolutionary theory is not 'ridiculous'.

I could suggest that it might be you, who has been 'conditioned to accept creationism without questioning its ridiculous premise', but I do not feel that it is my place to make such suggestions.

By the way, I have written some hubs on evolution that you may wish to look at.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

I think I should say right now that I do not wish that this hub to turn into some kind ugly mud slinging contest like the last hub I wrote on evolution did! I must say that I have the highest regard for both you Trish and for Lone Ranger, so if you going to spar..spar nice! I allowed myself to get little testy with Rod because he was saying things that were just completely untrue. However, it help prove my point that I was making in my hub that if evolution was just theory, then why do people get so riled up about it? I mean "the string theory" that states that every thing is connected though "strings" of energy, is controversial and profound and yet I do not see people getting up in arms about it!

In fact I think I will write a hub on "the string theory" for it is fascinating concept!


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands

Sorry Highvoltagewriter, I'm not mud-slinging; simply responding. It is wrong ~ on two counts: incorrect and impolite ~ to say that intelligent people only accept evolution, because they have been conditioned to do so.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

"Furthermore, most creationists do not seem to have a problem accepting other scientific benefits. They don't call medicine and electricity, etc, 'twisted theories and opinions'."

These are Straw Man arguments. Medicine and electricity can be demonstrated and tested. No one stands up in science class and insists "a bunch of scientists believe in electricity, so you should too!"

Science teachers demonstrate how to generate, measure, capture, and apply electricity. Evolution 'teachers' fall back on science by consensus, assumptions based on incomplete data, and the unassailable but well-concealed foundation of their argument: that everything can be explained naturally.


Lone Ranger 5 years ago

Trish:

Evolutionary theory began as a religious philosophy (the survival of the fittest). I know this because I read a book published well before Sir Charles decided to take it to the next level by incorporating this humanistic philosophy with the science of his day. It was all about conjuring up an alternative to Creationism or the science of Intelligent Design, as it is now known.

It is, therefore, a faith-based system that has been given an unnatural long life by mad-scientists holding up in Castle Frankenstein, who are attempting to bring the reign of God to an end and usher in the reign of man (just like Nimrod tried to do at the Tower of Babel).

Trish, I didn't mean to insult you by saying you are "conditioned", so please don't attempt to kill the messenger. The truth is that you have been conditioned, but you've been further conditioned not to see it. To an extent, we all have been conditioned to varying degrees, though some far more than others. We must all question everything we have been told, seen on television, heard in school, read in the papers, heard on the radio, and so on and so forth. Until you can do this, your mind really isn't your own.

Case in point: I remember a professor of mine years ago trying to explain the theory of evolution to his class. He began his shameful discourse by stating that chimps evolved into man. He furthered the lie by saying that chimps were all hunched over, very much as they are today, but they kept getting ambushed and eaten by lions who were waiting for them in the tall grasses nearby. So, over millions of years, these chimps straightened their posture and grew taller so they could see over the tall grasses in hopes of avoiding these predators.

Naturally, the whole class was deeply impressed with Dr. Braindrain's elaborate explanation, except for a young man with a deep, reverberating voice in the back of the class, who you have come to love and know as the Lone Ranger.

I raised my hand and asked Dr. Dipstick a question. He already knew that he was in for some trouble, for my reputation preceded me. I simply and respectfully asked the good doctor to explain to the class how an ambushed chimp was able to pass "the art of surviving lion attacks in tall grasses by staightening up one's back and growing taller" on to subsequent generations of chimps through his DNA, when the last thing he saw were rows of sharp teeth and the inside of a lion's belly?

Do you see the problem? Dr. Doomsday did too, but luckily for him, he was saved by the bell. I will always cherish the bright red color of his face and the appearance of sweat on his forehead as he began to stammer about, even asking the class for possible solutions. Classic case of the blind leading the blind.

I should mention that Dr. Dumbell began his sordid tale about chimps evolving into man by postulating the assumption that since chimps and man share 98% of the same genetic material, that it would be easy for one to become the other. To counter this "scientific" assumption, I brought up, for his listening pleasure, the fact that a rain cloud is comprised of 100% water and a watermelon is comprised of 99% water, but they are light years away from each other in form, function, and appearance. And, with very few exceptions has a watermelon evolved into a rain cloud or vice versa.

I know you must think that my professor and I shared an antagonistic relationship, but he liked me and respected me above all others and I liked him, too (but did not respect his career of misrepresenting facts and brainwashing young minds).

Even though I was just a student, I was the only person, in all his years in academia, who actually got him to think. We had many discussions before and after class and he candidly told me that he couldn't respond to many of my questions nor could he counter most of my arguments - he had not been trained to respond to those kinds of questions. He flat-out told me that one has to rely on faith...the faith that his predecessors got it right and that science is our guiding light.


Lone Ranger 5 years ago

Nicomp:

Loved your reply, and I like how you think. God's blessings to you and yours!


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

I got to say that this has proven to be one of the most stimulating comment section of any my hubs and I want to thank every one for their comments! The only reason I made the commit I did in my last post is that I just want to try to keep the emotions out of it and I speaking to myself as much as anyone else, for I also can get get caught up in emotion!

There have been some splendid dialogue happening here between both the Intelligent Design camp and the evolutionist camp and all I need is some comments from the "alien assisted" evolutionist and then we can combine "camps" and then roast some marshmallows! :)


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands

Hi again :)

I have explained my thoughts on evolution, and how I arrived at them, in a hub of the same name, so there is not much point going over it all, again, here.

Suffice to say that I am no more 'conditioned' than anyone else ~ possibly a good deal less so ~ and that I took on my teachers, too ~ my Scripture and Sunday School teachers. I question pretty much everything. My mind is very much my own.

To me, evolution is so logical that I cannot comprehend how anyone can find the Bible more acceptable.

I know that Nicomp disagrees, because of previous discussions.

Lone Ranger, your tutor was a teacher; not an evolutionary scientist. (Same with all Evolution 'teachers', Nicomp.) Maybe he didn't explain it well; maybe he was just trying to simplify things for his students; maybe he didn't really understand it; or maybe you misunderstood what he was trying to say. I don't know, but it is irrelevant, since he was not an expert on the subject, anyway.

Chimpanzees are closely related to us. Chimps and humans share an ancestor 'relatively' recently. It has nothing to do with water and everything to do with DNA.

Did apes evolve to be more upright, because of lions and other predators? I don't know. But it is true that we are more upright, and we usually walk on two feet all of the time. So what could have happened?

You assumed that an upright ape (not chimp) would have had to, somehow, pass on his knowledge of outwitting lions, to subsequent generations, which, of course, he couldn't do, if he were dead.

Again, this is not how it works.

If this theory is correct, then this is how it would work:

Apes, which could not see their attackers in advance, and escape, would be caught and killed. Unless they had already had babies, their genes would not be passed on.

Apes, which could see their attackers in advance, and so escape, would be less likely to be caught and killed. Thus they could go on to have (more) babies, and pass on their 'tall + upright' genes.

Those, which kept being killed, were more likely to die out ~ even if only slowly; or even if only in certain areas.

Those which survived attacks most often were less likely to die out, and more likely to produce similar looking offspring ~ tall and upright, like their parents.

It could be a relatively slow process, but this tribe of apes would change ~ evolve ~ markedly. They would, eventually, fit better into this particularly lion-infested environment. They would fit into it better than did their shorter relatives. This is survival of the fittest (ie. the most 'fitting').

Re religion ~ yes, in the days when Darwin and his grandfather were introducing evolutionary theories, most British people were Christian ~ possibly / probably including them. If evolutionary theory did begin as a religious philosophy, then that shouldn't be a problem, since many Christians accept it, today, anyway. The Pope, several Anglican bishops; the priest who taught at at my school ~ lots of Christians accept evolution. It is not an 'atheistic' subject.

Furthermore, the 'Big Bang', which has been mentioned, but which is not part of evolutionary theory, was originally suggested by a Christian ~ a Roman Catholic priest.

Darwin was a naturalist ~ he simply wrote what he saw and experienced. He may have tried to fit it in with his Christian upbringing, but I don't see why it should have been a specifically Christian philosophy.

Certainly 'evolution' is not a faith-based system. It is based upon knowledge ~ scientific research. Geology, fossils, DNA, etc, etc ~ all point to the same conclusions.

Insulting and ridiculing scientists is not a good thing to do. They are not always right, but we would have a lot of problems without them.

The truth is that many fundamentalist Creationists are totally biased against evolution and simply will not even look at the subject objectively.

As I suggested, before, have a look at my hub, where I set out everything simply, but at length, so that it is clear as I could make it for the non-specialist ~ like me.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

"Lone Ranger, your tutor was a teacher; not an evolutionary scientist. (Same with all Evolution 'teachers', Nicomp.)"

Opps. Sorry. A scientist can be a teacher. I have two science degrees and I'm actually get paid to teach.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

"Chimpanzees are closely related to us. Chimps and humans share an ancestor 'relatively' recently. It has nothing to do with water and everything to do with DNA."

Wrong again. Similar DNA does not prove common ancestry. Morphology does not imply homology. The math doesn't work out anyway: the rate of beneficial mutations that would have to have taken place to morph a chimp ancestor into a human is in violation of evolutionary models.

By the way I love the way that evolutionists link chimps and humans through a conceptual 'ancestor' that no one can actually point to.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

"Insulting and ridiculing scientists is not a good thing to do. They are not always right, but we would have a lot of problems without them."

I agree.

"The truth is that many fundamentalist Creationists are totally biased against evolution and simply will not even look at the subject objectively."

And every pro-evolutionist who supports their position by asserting that 'the majority of scientists believe..." is also not looking at the subject objectively. Neither side is blameless.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Like I said in my hub, even God is a evolutionist, which means that he created life to adapt. Maybe this is what the scriptures hint to when it says "His eye is on the sparrow" by helping them to survive when the environment would change. The Big Bang is not part of evolution and was "suggested" by Roman Catholic Priest? Never heard this before I will have to research it...I'll get back to you on that...From my research, it was a radio host back in the fifties that coined the term "Big Bang"


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Wow Trish I just learned something I did not know...Georges Lemaître was priest in 1927 who was also a astronomer. It appears he was smart man...and yet I still do not understand your viewpoint about the "Big Bang" not being part of evolution! Please explain.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

"and yet I still do not understand your viewpoint about the "Big Bang" not being part of evolution! Please explain."

Not speaking for Trish, but macro-evolutionists generally assert that their 'science' doesn't address how life originated, just that it depends on descent with modification. They readily agree that the first life could have come from an external source or could have spontaneously generated.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands

Hello Highvoltagewriter :)

Evolution is about life evolving ~ not about it coming into being :)

This is why the priest, at my school, accepted it. He believed that God created life ~ and then it evolved. I think that this is similar to your thoughts on the subject.

I'm busy packing for my holiday just now and, as I said, there is nothing more that I can add, which I haven't posted already, elsewhere.

The Biblical creationist view makes absolutely no sense to me. I'm sorry if this offends, but it doesn't. Evolutionary science may sound a bit too amazing to be true, but it fits with what we know.

Nicomp, If it were true that 'Similar DNA does not prove common ancestry', then we wouldn't have paternity tests.

And it is not about what 'the majority of scientists' believes, it is about what the experts in the subject have discovered and what makes sense. There are scientists, who do not believe this ~ the fundamentalist, Christian, Creationist ones ~ but they are biased.

I want to hear what the unbiased discoverers find out. Scientists are mostly objective, but they have to stand up for themselves, when they are mocked and ridiculed.

How can anyone suggest that humans evolving from apes makes no sense, but making a woman out of a man's rib is perfectly fine and reasonable?!


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

To answer the question that you pose at the end of your post, I would have to use the F word...Faith! Because if the Bible is the word of God then I have to trust that is the way it was done! The reason why, is that it comes down to, is do I trust in God or not?

God has proven Himself to me time and time again and that is why I must believe that the scripture is telling me the truth! Yes I know that a lot of Christians buy into the belief that God used evolution in the creative process but for me there selling out! They are not trusting the account of creation in Genesis, so are they truly Christian? I hope you have a good trip and when you come back I suggest you read my latest Hub "This thing called Faith."


Lone Ranger 5 years ago

Trish stated, "How can anyone suggest that humans evolving from apes makes no sense...."

-----------------------------

Well, Trish, for starters, no one has ever seen the process of evolution at work, and if you were honest with yourself and everyone else, you would have to concede this point. This is to say that no one has ever seen a chimp evolving into a human, nor have they seen any other creature evolving into another life form. If you claim to know someone who has seen this take place or perhaps you have witnessed this yourself...the scientific community would love to hear from you ASAP and will probably write you a big check.

Conversely, I cannot comprehend how anyone could even conceive of the remote possibility that chimps could evolve into man or one creature could evolve into another. This very notion is so counter-intuitive and contrary to what is known and observable, that it must take a person of profound faith or profound simplicity to accept a premise that is so indefensible.

Apparently evolution requires complete and instantaneous metamorphosis from one life form to another without wasting any steps in-between. The fossil record shows many different creatures, but no creatures in the midst of changing from one form into another. How can you defend this?

Just open your eyes and see the world for what it is, and you will see that there are no creatures on this planet changing from one life form into another. The fossil record doesn't show it, museums don't show it, and neither does National Geographic. Sure, they all have their fake models and such, but at the end of the day all they have is conjecture, speculation, assumption, theory, and a multitude of wild-ass guesses, not mention some really creative art-work.

I think the real mystery here is why you continue to believe in a system that requires no proof and has not produced one shred of real evidence to back it up since its big-bang 160 years ago. In the end, the strength behind the Theory of Evolution is not in truth, fact, or science, but rather in the gullibility of its adherents.

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be offensive or unnecessarily difficult here, but what else can be said about those who believe in something that has never been found, observed, encountered, felt, heard, studied, or tested? I will patiently await your reply.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

As we wait on Trish to return, I must ask you Lone Ranger if this is not also true about creation? For we have not seen God create anything....but it is impossible for me to believe otherwise because of the fact other physical objects in the world has been created by man! Just like the Hansen robots in my "Artificial Love" article, they were designed and are "evolving" though trial and error. Trish ask about women being made from ribs and all got to say that God has done a spectacular job, for women are a true work of art!

After all. a rib already have human DNA supplied so it DOES seem more likely than us coming from primates!


Lone Ranger 5 years ago

Indeed, High Voltage!

The difference here is that Christ Jesus has been observed and He has been around from the very beginning. John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God...."

The Word of God (Christ Jesus) has been found, heard, felt, experienced, encountered, studied, and great miracles and superhuman deeds have been performed and witnessed over many years.

On the contrary, no one has ever claimed to have seen evolution at work or can show any by-products of this unobservable, untested, unheard, unencountered, unexperienced, unfelt, and unfounded myth.

There is far more evidence to support the existence of the Loch Ness monster than there is in support of evolution, but the scientific community embraces the latter and denies the former. It would seem that evidence is nothing more than an inconvenience to evolutionists and truth is completely unnecessary.

At the end of the day, it isn't a matter of whether or not anyone can remember The Almighty and His Only Begotton Son speaking worlds into existence, for The Almighty cannot be pleased without faith. Since faith is a necessary by-product of the Christian life, we do not need to know everything or need to have witnessed everything - if we had, then there is no need for faith.

If The Almighty wanted us to find Noah's Ark and every other notable Biblical artifact of antiquity...He would reveal them to us, but "Blessed are those who believe and haven't seen." Faith is a principal element in the spirit of mankind, and the lack thereof will have serious eternal implications.

Evolutionists have challenged Intelligent Design, Creationism, and the Holy Bible. They have provided an alternate explanation to the creation of the cosmos and the creation of life on earth in all its forms, but they have never answered the question, instead they just dance around it.

The problem evolutionists face is their alternative is factless and baseless, but this has not stopped them from railroading their baseless theory to the front of every schoolhouse, courthouse, whorehouse, henhouse and doghouse across the globe.

Intelligent Design is not taught in public schools because they say it is a religious concept that suffers from the lack of evidence. But, by the same token evolution offers even less evidence and cannot be supported by observation any more than it can be tested or studied, yet it is the only faith-based system that has shown no aptitude for evidence or one that makes people into better human beings. This is to say that it offers no benefits to mankind.

Since Intelligent Design, Creationism, and the Holy Bible have been expelled from public schools, public forums, and from social discourse (in general) because of its faith-based nature, then the Theory of Evolution should be expelled for the same reasons.

Either teach both faith-based systems and let the people decide what to follow, or drop them both and allow the masses to choose their own path without pressure from the social engineers who guide our federal and state governments. Of couse they know that to further the Theory of Evolution and to keep it alive, they must brainwash each generation while they are young, so they do not question its validity when they are older. As the Bible has said, "Teach a child in the way he should go and when he gets older he will not veer from the path."

The bottom line is the Theory of Evolution was formulated to challenge and supplant Intelligent Design and the Holy Bible, but they have never met the burden of evidence, nor have they shown any proof since its origins about 160 years ago. As of today's date, the challenger has not proved his case and is asking the public and world at large to have faith in science and the Theory of Evolution, but to scorn all other faith-based systems. Looks like a set of double-standards have been employed, which makes it all the more hypocritical and unbecoming.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Wow, I must say you do not pull your punches and that is great! I have a new hub that I would like to get your feedback on and it is called "This thing called Faith" you will see it on my profile page and you should also watch all of the videos for in my opinion they are very powerful and I think you would enjoy them!


Lone Ranger 5 years ago

Thanks, High Voltage!

I will read your newest hub with pleasure, but I am off to bed now and will be leaving town in short order.

I should be away for up to three weeks and I am afraid where I am going there will not be any internet service, so I will have to check it out then, unless I can steal a moment or two tomorrow before I leave.

Please take care of yourself and keep looking to Our Heavenly Father and His Only Son for Their provisions and protection. - L.R.


tsadjatko profile image

tsadjatko 5 years ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

Ever hear Frank Turek on this subject? After reading your hub I am sure you would enjoy his videos - he has a great sense of humor too! Just search youtube for frank turek or I put together some of his videos here http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/I-dont-hav... One of my favorite's is "The New Testament Is Too Embarrassing To Be True"!


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands

Hi All :)

I am holidaying in Spain but can occasionally get Internet access, so here I am :)

Lone Ranger, it is not entirely true to say that ‘no one has ever seen the process of evolution at work’, because, though it is a very slow process, changes ~ adaptations ~ have been seen in living humans and animals ~ plus, of course, there is all of the fossil and DNA evidence, etc.

I am being honest about this ~ maybe you should really look into the full information available, rather than quoting only biased and incorrect bits and pieces.

No scientist claims that chimps evolved into humans. They did not. Chimps and humans share common ancestry.

Why is the ‘very notion’ that we might have evolved from an ape-like creature ‘so counter-intuitive’? Have you not seen the early primate remains that have been found? Can you not see the similarities with both us and the chimps? It is not contrary to what is known and observable. Simply because it does not fit with your preconceptions does not make it incorrect. I am quite sceptical and keep an open mind about many things. Am I a ‘person of profound simplicity’? I am not even going to answer that one. But if I countered with ‘it would take a person of profound simplicity to believe the Bible’, then I think that I would be hounded ~ possibly rightly so!

The evolutionary premise is not indefensible, but you have written some things about it that are completely incorrect, so you need to check out the correct information.

For example, you are incorrect when you state that ‘Apparently evolution requires complete and instantaneous metamorphosis from one life form to another without wasting any steps in-between’. That is not at all what evolution is about. There may be some almost instantaneous changes, but, generally, change is very slow and gradual and would be barely noticed, which is why, as you say, we do not notice evolution occurring around us.

The fossil records actually do show ‘creatures in the midst of changing from one form into another’, so I don’t have anything to defend! Please, ‘Just open your own eyes and see the world for what it is.’

I am neither simple, nor gullible, and I am afraid that it is, indeed, offensive for you to say so. If I insulted you in the same manner you would not like it, I’m sure. I could respond that you ‘continue to believe in a system that requires no proof and has not produced one shred of real evidence to back it up’. I could add that evidence for your beliefs ‘has never been found, observed, encountered, felt, heard, studied, or tested’.

I’m guessing that you haven’t read my ‘evolution’ hubs. This is a huge subject and I have already submitted a number of pages on the subject. I couldn’t possibly repeat them all here.

If you claim to know someone who has seen a clay model turn into a living man or a man’s rib turn into a living woman ~ or perhaps you have witnessed this yourself ~ then the scientific community would love to hear from you and will probably write you a large cheque!


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands

Hi Again Lone Ranger

Christ Jesus has not been observed by anyone, who can corroborate his existence, and there is no proof that he ever even existed. The gospels are, by their very name and nature, propaganda ~ not history. I think that Jesus may have existed, but there is no proof and the stories are so confusing that it looks as if they hide an untold truth rather than declaring a known truth.

Regardless, nothing that Jesus supposedly said or did relates to the ‘fact’ that evolution is not true.

It is a matter of faith, opinion and belief that ‘The Word of God (Christ Jesus) has been found, heard, felt, experienced, encountered, studied, and great miracles and superhuman deeds have been performed and witnessed over many years’. This cannot, in any way, shape or form be compared to scientific research and it is totally untrue to say that the Christian myth is more reliable that evolutionary theory ~ which is not a ‘myth’.

It is totally untrue, biased and insulting to scientists to state that ‘evidence is nothing more than an inconvenience to evolutionists and truth is completely unnecessary’. Faith is fine for the believer, but does not give him / her the right to call scientists charlatans and liars. Faith is also no argument against the logic of others.

It is simply untrue to say that evolution is ‘factless and baseless’. Evolution does not offer less evidence than ‘Intelligent Design’. Evolution is not a ‘faith-based sysyem’. Evolution can be supported by observation and can be tested or studied, if the student knows what s/he is doing.

To say that ‘it offers no benefits to mankind’ is illogical. Science is science ~ it is neutral, whether considered ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Since it is not a religious matter, it should not, of course, ‘be expelled’ from schools, etc.

In UK schools, both are taught, so you are arguing against something that does not happen in my country ~ but in the USA you have separation of church and state. It is your law.

The Theory of Evolution was not ‘formulated to challenge and supplant Intelligent Design and the Holy Bible’, it was a scientific discovery ~ like gravity, etc.

It is clear, to me, that your faith does not allow for you to look at this subject in an unbiased manner. Our points of view are so different that there is no point in further discussion.

However, I would suggest that you examine your arguments and check that they are correct, because a number of those that you have posted here are not correct.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands

Hello Highvoltagewriter :)

Interesting subject, which always ends in stalemate, for some reason :)

I'll check out your new hub when I get the chance :)


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Hello Trish, I hope the weather in Spain is pleasant and I appreciate you taking the time to contact me (it makes me fell important). Lone Ranger will also be away for a bit so I guess it's just you and me! :) Anyway, I find it interesting that both sides of this debate accuse each other of avoiding the evidence.

One of the things I have been curious about is the discovery of MODERN human teeth in Israel that scientist claim is 400,000 years old that would spit in the face of the theory that human life evolved out of Africa!

Then there is the evidence about human giants that seem to be ignored or covered up my science. I am now working on a hub on that very subject! I also want to have a open mind and yet, it appears to me that science keeps processing information to fit there agenda.

Go ahead and reread my Evolution of Evolution hub again, at least the section about hoaxes and miss interpreted evidence. The scientist to me seem to be very good "spinning" the truth like a child's top until it looks the way they want it to look!


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands

Hi :)

Spain's great! I love it here!

Re those teeth, there doesn't seem to be a problem according to this:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-28/ancient-t...

Quote: 'While the features aren’t a direct match to Neanderthals or early modern humans, they have a “stronger affinity” to Homo sapiens, the investigators said ...'

So we are not talking about 'modern' as in 'modern'.

Stories about giants are, indeed, interesting. I don't know what their origins are.

As for the alien theories, this is a subject that I also actually find quite interesting. There are some really intriguing comments in ancient documents. :)


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

That article proves my point...of course they are not going to though out there beloved theory because of few teeth but I think some of the "spin doctors" wish they could get a hold of those teeth so they cover it up! History is full of examples of science jumping to conclusions!


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

"Satanism isn't even Satanism, any more. It is just a movement that criticises Christian beliefs. There is no Satan. Not even modern Satanists believe in him." That is completely untrue! That is the cover story that Satanist put forth but any one who was ever active in Satanism does come to believe in force...at least those on a higher level.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Aleister Crowley the most famous Satanist of modern time absolutely believed in a Satan as real entity. So does John Lee the acting High Priest of "The First Church of Satan." In fact he believes it is possible to evolve into something he refers to as a "Daemon" that is like a personal god or "higher self." LayVay, denied the existence of Satan WHILE IN PUBLIC. However, when I was initiated into the priesthood I had sign a contract in blood that swore my allegiance to Satan "the god of the world and the king of Hell!" I could go on and on but you would probably not believe me anyway!


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

"No scientist claims that chimps evolved into humans. They did not. Chimps and humans share common ancestry."

No, they don't. Do the math. The rate of beneficial mutations required for this to happen is contrary to your evolutionary models.

Anyway, everyone says "share common ancestry" but no one ever goes out on a limb (so to speak) and actually identifies that common ancestor. At some point in time, according to the accepted evolutionary models, there should be a common ancestor from which the chimp tree and the human tree diverged. Somewhere that little animal must have existed and mutated two different ways, both beneficial.

So, tell us about that little animal: where it lived and what so-called 'pressures' caused two radically different evolutionary pathways. Lay out the math that models the rate of beneficial mutations to get from that little animal to humans and chimps. Hint: there is no such little animal and no such evolutionary pathway.

That's your homework.

When you turn in your homework, the following arguments will not be accepted:

1.Links to other sites: if you can't defend your position, you have no business making blanket assertions regarding a nebulous "common ancestor."

2. Whining that the burden of proof lies with creationists: you made the blithe comment that a "common ancestor" exists, so support your assertion.

I await your submission. :)


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

OMG, Trish...nicomp even gave you homework! Why didn't I think of that! By the way nicomp, science got all excited about the fossil of a lemur they even called "Ida" until it was proven that it was not all that special after all because of other fossils found in other countries. At first it was marketed as "The Link" and the 'Eight Wonder of the World."


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands

Hello Highvoltagewriter :)

I should be getting ready to explore Spain with my family, but I have been lured back to Hub Pages ~ and to this article :)

Yes, of course, some / mmany people believe in Satan ~ but certainly not all of them are those who classify themselves as modern 'Satanists'. I think that, pro rata, more Christians believe in Satan than do Satanists.

But that is beside the point, really. The important question with regard to your hub is: Is evolution the work of Satan'? And the answer is a clear 'no!'.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands

The 'homework' shouldn't be mine.

I have already suggested that the creationists read up on the subject of evolution ~ good clear work by experts, not biased untruths.

I have already shown how some of the assertions, posted, are incorrect, but this gets no response.

Why is the burden on me? I am not a scientist! There are hundreds of books and articles that they could read, but it seems that either they don't, or they won't, or they misunderstand it all.

I say 'they', because I am not specifically referring to Nicomp, but also to all of the the others, who have argued against evolutionary theory ~ on Hub Pages and elsewhere.

Interestingly, I have brought 'The God Delusion' on holiday with me. This is my first reading and much of it it fits so well with my opinions.

I suggest that those who wish to question me just read Dawkins. They will get the replies that they want ~ but from an expert on the subject!


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands

Nicomp

Firstly, I do not 'whine' and it is very impolite for you to suggest that I do. If I did the same to you, you would feel insulted ~ and rightfully so!

Scientists do not claim that humans descend from chimps because we don't. It is nothing to do with maths. It would be akin to saying that someone was descended from their cousin. Cousins are related to each other; they are rarely each other's ancestors or descendents.

Similarly we are related to chimpanzees; we are not descended from each other.

As for doing mathematics, there has been plenty of time for humans to evolve from ape-like creatures into the people we see today.

This planet has a very long history, as have the people on it. There were ancestors who looked very much like us, and, before that, there were ancestors who looked more like apes. Read it up. There is a mass of information out there. But you have to read with an open mind; not just keep assuming that evolutionary scientists are rogues and charlatons!

Regarding the sharing of common ancestry, I could tell whether or not I was related to my cousin, using genetics / DNA, without knowing what our grandparents looked like, or who they were. Similarly, experts in this area can tell that chimpanzees share a common ancestor, without necessarily identifying that ancestor.

I don't know where the scientists currently are with this ~ I am not a scientist ~ but it is clear to me, when I see the likes of 'Lucy', and the other 'early humans' / 'late apes' on our evolutionary path, that this ancestor existed. Yes, as you say: 'Somewhere that little animal must have existed and mutated two different ways, both beneficial'.

This animal?

As I keep saying, I am not an evolutionary scientist, but some things are clear:

'Where did it live?'

It lived in Africa.

All evidence ~ fossils, DNA, etc ~ point to Africa.

'What so-called 'pressures' caused two radically different evolutionary pathways?'

I don't know.

I don't know what, exactly, caused many of the evolutionary changes in our past.

Many experts have theories, which are far more useful than any that I could come up with, so I suggest that you read the works of the experts. (I have linked to some on my hubs.)

'Lay out the math that models the rate of beneficial mutations to get from that little animal to humans and chimps. Hint: there is no such little animal and no such evolutionary pathway'.

You disbelieve any potential answer before one has even been formulated. Sadly, that says a lot about your lack of an open mind.

'That's your homework. .... When you turn in your homework, the following arguments will not be accepted ...'

How incredibly rude and condescending!

Nicomp, I am not an expert on this and your tone is, again, very impolite.

Read the experts!

I'll set you some homework ~ do some 'expert' reading on the subject and try to be a little more polite to your fellow HubPages members!!

Why do some creationists feel that it is acceptable for them to be so impolite? I am bewildered by their tone in an adult discussion.

HighVoltageWriter and I do not agree on a number of matters, but I would like to think that our exchanges are polite and friendly.

I have provided and defended my position and it is not my problem if you, or anyone else, refuse to either believe, accept, or understand it.

I'm off to the beach :)


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

Hi Trish_M,

Thank you for your feedback. I agree that you're not an expert. Your characterization of my 'tone' is a classic dodge used by evolutionists: attack the messenger. Don't let yourself be distracted by what you perceive as an impolite tone... do the math and read the science as interpreted by both sides of the argument.

Remember, we both have the same set of facts. You need an understanding of the assumptions and interpolations required to arrive at descent with modification.

Have a great time at the beach!


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands

Nicomp, I have read the science and, as I have already indicated, I suggest that you do likewise.

I am not dodging anything. I have responded over and over again to creationists, who seem to simply ignore anything that does not fit in with their view of the world.

I simply prefer to discuss things politely and do not take kindly to rudeness.

I have an understanding of the information available on evolution; it makes complete sense to me. The area where I do lack understanding is when it comes to the creationist world view. I cannot understand that.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

@Trish_M: fair enough. This is going nowhere.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands

I agree, Nicomp.

Discussions that relate, in any way, to religious opinions and beliefs are rarely productive, I find.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

@Trish_M: Sorry, I can't let that one go. Learn your science and get back to me.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

I am a little confused on how one can have a conversation on the Comment Section without me hitting the allow button....I guess I do not have as much control over my hubs as I was lead to believe! I am also confused by how two people can look at the same form of "evidence" and not come to the same conclusion.

Long before I had any emotional ties with the Intelligent Design camp, I started questioning the assumptions brought forth by evolutionist. It just seemed to be so unlikely that something did not create life! This, as I stated in earlier writings, caused a problem for me for I was also having problems with the Biblical explanation to how life began.

This is why I "floated" towards "Alien assisted evolution" which still leaves a lot up in the air! I have researched many evolutionist sites and have read "The Origin of species" three times. I have also been an amateur fossil collector and I STILL have serious trouble believing the evolutionary theory is correct!

I have noticed NONE of the fans of evolution has responded what so ever to my section about the moon, HOW IN THE WORLD DID ALL THESE MOONS CAME INTO BEING BY SOMETHING CRASHING INTO OTHER LAGER PLANETS? BTW Trish, I have read your hub and I will reread, but what I remember most about it, is that you seem to use National Graphic as your main authority!


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands

Hello HighVoltageWriter :)

Sorry to have continued the discussion without you. I thought that you were watching and reading, since you seemed interested in the 'homework' that I was set.

I have already answered all of the points, though, here and in my hubs ~ and there are plenty of experts, who have written books and made documentaries, so it is not my role in life to keep saying the same things to ears which do not want to hear.

Regarding the 'authorities' in my hubs, there are several.

National Geographic filmed a very interesting documentary, which inspired one of my hubs. 'Nat Geo' is not the authority, it is the producer. There are lots of quoted authorities in that programme, and I think that I have referred to most, if not all, of them. So, no, National Geographic is not my main authority. Their film 'Was Darwin Wrong?' simply inspired and influenced one of my hubs ~ 'Evolution - Could the Creationists Have Got It Right ??!!'

I look to Steve Jones, David Attenborough, Desmond Morris, Richard Dawkins, Neil Shubin, and others, whose books I have read.

And there isn't just one hub, there are a few ~ from different angles:

'Evolution and Creationism - My Take On Them and How I Arrived Here'

'Evolution - Creationists Right and Darwin Wrong ??!!'

'Evolution - Could the Creationists Have Got It Right ??!!'

'Evolution - The Human Difference ~ Chimps and Men (and Women)'

Why do different people deal differently with the evidence?

Background and education, largely, I would say ~ plus, of course, we are all different, with different likes, dislikes, interests, etc, etc.

But ...

~ It seems daft that we should descend from fish ~ or even apes.

~ It goes against the Bible and other holy books ~ and everything that was taught to Christian individuals since childhood ~ to believe such apparent nonsense.

The thing is, if one looks at it properly, it becomes more clear and more obviously correct.

And if one looks at the creation myths of religion, one sees that they would never be considered correct, if they had not been taught and re-inforced since childhood.

Would any intelligent Christian really believe that a man was made out of clay, and a woman was made from his rib, if it were in any other old text than the ' Holy Bible'? ~ No!

It isn't logical. It is nowhere near as logical as evolution, yet many Christians will insult anyone who disagrees with them ~ indicating that they are simple, foolish, unread, easily led (by Satan), etc.

Discussions of this nature go nowhere, because so many of the people, involved in the dicscussion, are too biased. They will not objectively read the experts . They will not respond to logical critiques of their beliefs. They will not look at the subject, without first deciding what their conclusion is going to be. That simply does not work.

I looked to the Bible, but it did not give me answers. It's not as if I haven't read it ~ I have read more of it than have many Christians. I have looked at both 'sides' in this debate. One concerns knowledge; the other concerns faith. Faith that contradicts science cannot be used as evidence.

Why would scientists be rogues and liars? ~ It makes no sense. Science is generally unbiased. That's what science is about ~ finding things out, adapting ideas, learning information. It's not about mythologies.

I am not including you in this, HighVoltageWriter. I know that you don't share my views, but I can see that you are open to different ideas. That's all I would ask of any Creationist. It is not my place to convert them; I just ask that they look at the science without bias, without insulting the scientists ~ or those who agree with them ~ and without making up their minds before they have even looked at the information.

HighVoltageWriter, you say that you have read Darwin's work. I congratulate you. I have tried, but I found it hard going. His style of writing is old-fashioned ~ plus, new discoveries have been made since his day. I would recommend something newer ~ eg 'The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution' by Richard Dawkins and 'Almost Like A Whale' by Steve Jones.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

I do not have a problem with people debating without me- I was just curious on how that was possible, if we are equipped to allow or deny on our hubs then how is it that people can carry on a conversation without the author of the hub granting permission? I guess that is quest for the "Help" section!

I apologies for presenting the wrong info about your hub for I thought you were speaking about the one in which you use the arguments about the eye and the jellyfish that was presented by the National Geographic segment. The one in which you celebrate the anniversary of Darwin was the one that you were actually referring to, My Bad!

The Bible states over again that if we "lean on our own understanding" we will be blind to the truth that God is wanting to convey. You say that it is not logical that man was created out of clay and yet men themselves have made great marvels out of clay...how much greater work could a unlimited God accomplish? Science has ignored the evidence of creation over and over again! You can go ahead and check back to my hub "The Evolution of Evolution." There is example after example of evidence that science seems to ignore because it does not fit their agenda!

BTW you are right about Darwin being hard to read...and I do admit skimming over parts of this massive document. I reread it recently because AKA Wilson made the absurd argument that I only used "Creationist sites" to do my research!

I find it hilarious that evolutionist think nothing wrong with only using scientist that embrace evolution to base there arguments. but when Intelligent Design people use other sources they get their panties all wrinkled!


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands

Hi again :

Regarding my thoughts and findings on evolution, they are included in all of my evolution hubs.

Nat Geo wasn't an authority, though, the experts in their documentary were.

Regarding the eye, Dan-Eric Nilsson, of the Lund University in Sweden, was the expert. Indeed, in response to some comments / questions from Nicomp, I contacted Dr Nilsson, personally, and he sent some responses, which he very kindly allowed me to post in the comments section.

I think, if one is going to argue this out, then one needs to know both 'sides' of the story, but, basically, one side is the Bible ~ and ID books are just opinions on that. Why not just go straight to the document in question ~ Genesis?

If I may, with respect, quote you ~ "There is example after example of evidence for evolution that creationists seem to ignore because they do not fit their agenda!"

I'll have a look at your other 'evolution' hub.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

And why your at it Trish, could you please explain how all those moons to all the planets in the whole universe were formed?


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY

HVW- Thank you for writing this fine Hub! Many poeple do not believe in evolution but are reluctant to speak out.

I agree with your analysis that evolution is a very well conceived and impressive looking theory except that its wrong. Like you mentioned, its more of a secular faith than a scientific theory! Its all about the arrogance of man believing He can live apart from the God who created him.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Thank you so much wba108 for dropping in, I am glad to hear from people who also do not buy into the whole evolution view!


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands

Hi :)

Evolution is neither a matter of faith nor arrogance!

*

Moons.

I have read about this topic, but not enough for me to give any information on the subject. :)


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

So Trish, you should check out the videos on the hub "I do not have enough faith to be a Atheist" for it is the best videos I have seen on this subject.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands

Hello Highvoltagewriter :)

Yes, now that I am home, I shall check out those videos ~ though I have already seen some of Turek's items :)


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

One thing that puzzles me Trish, is why are you so passionate about this subject? I know why I am passionate about it, I am passionate for I want to expose evolution in the way it now has become packaged as a lie presented by Satan to deceive. If evolution is just a scientific theory a educated guess, then why all the fever to prove it correct?

Evolutionist keep claiming that evolution is not a belief but a proven fact, and yet here you are flogging a dead horse! If it is fact prove it!


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands

Hello Highvoltagewriter :)

I have a number of interests and I am passionate about them all ~ photography, genealogy, history, theology, etc, etc. It's just in my nature.

I will add, though, that, as a qualified teacher, I also feel very passionate about education ~ and about miseducation.

With all due respect, I feel that anti-evolution propaganda ~ including talk of its connection to 'Satan', for example ~ is not only incorrect, but also morally very wrong indeed.

A 'scientific theory' is not 'an educated guess'. That is not what 'scientific theory' is. Errors and misunderstandings, like these, are being spread and taught ~ in schools, churches and on the Internet, etc. This sort of 'misinformation' needs to be countered and corrected.

I keep reminding everyone that I am not a scientist, so it is not within my capacity to actually prove evolution, but, I think that my hubs go a very long way towards doing so, by quoting scientific authorities, who do know the facts, and by explaining the details in words that a non-scientist ~ someone like me ~ can follow. This, at least, is my hope.

It does annoy me, when people, who do not know what the scientists know, and who have not been educated to their level, believe that they are more knowledgeable than the experts and even that they are in a position to ridicule them. That is unfair and inappropriate, yet it happens regularly.

It is vital that people leave their religious beliefs and their biased ideas behind, when they look at science and scientific ideas. If the two can go together, then fine. That's great. If they can't, then objective questions need to be asked.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

The bottom line for me Trish is that if science feels they have a right to bash religion for not being scientific, and yet they get excited when those who believe in intelligent design say they have not proven one darn thing with all there so called facts and theories. I want to make it clear that I do not see science as evil, however as you already know I feel that is larger unseen reality that needs to be considered.

You say you got a thing about photography, well so I! In fact I was the photographer for my High School year book and then I went on to be a freelance photographer for the Rodeo circuit.

Also if you look at my profile you will see that I owned a video production company and I am working towards incorporating video back into my other online endeavours.

The reason why I chose to speak about this on this post, is to use photography as a example of why I have tough time buying into evolution! Photography has developed though the years because of the innovations created by men (or women) who had the foresight to advance this technology from standard cameras like SLR (single lens reflex) to digital technology. This happened over years of trial and error and great efforts on the part of those who CREATED this technology. Now, would it not be a disgrace to the people who CREATED these innovations, to have someone claim that these innovations just happened?

The reason while I am so vocal about evolution is because I have a relationship with "Him" that created me and it bothers me when people try to say that his creation just evolved though some involved process!

Let us take a look at the solar-system and how everything about it seems to be DESIGNED so life can exist on Earth! If Earth was any closer to the sun we would burn up, any farther away we would freeze! How could that just happen?


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 5 years ago from The English Midlands

Hello Highvoltagewriter :)

The thing is, it's not 'bashing' religion to say that it is unscientific. It's just the truth.

And it's simply not true to say that scientists haven't proved anything.

I agree that there is much that is as yet unknown ~ 'science' accepts this.

I watched some fascinating documentaries, recently, about the solar system and the universe ~ and their role in our evolution.

Everything points to evolution ~ whether or not God was the original originator. It seems clear that the book of Genesis is an allegory.


Yoda Speaks profile image

Yoda Speaks 5 years ago from UNKNOWN

"bings and bluders" ? Much too hard for me, this language is. Herh herh herh.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 5 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Say what?? One more time in English...


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 4 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Yea Yoda caught me in a mental moment when I made a type error, in fact a pretty embarrassing one, I must be more careful in editing.

Anyway, Trish you should read my latest hub...it would be interested on your view. About Genesis being allegory, MAYBE, it was God supplying a mystery, something to stretch ones faith?


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 4 years ago from The English Midlands

OK, when I get the chance :)


CJ Sledgehammer 4 years ago

HighVoltage:

I was just wondering if you could give me a little feedback on a little poem I just wrote on Evolution. I know you have written extensively on the subject, so your opinion would be greatly appreciated.

Thanking you in advance - C.J. Sledgehammer


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 4 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Great CJ, I would love to assist you! Let me know what you want me to do!


CJ Sledgehammer 4 years ago

Thanks, Highvoltage! Your encouragement and glowing endorsement was more than I could have asked for.

I need to run for now, but I'll be back real soon to read some more of your excellent research and essays.

God's blessings to you and yours - C.J. Sledgehammer


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 3 years ago from Wisconsin

I see a lot of people here arguing about something that you don't fully understand.

#1) There is no such thing as an "evolutionist" Nothing about science has anything to do with faith. You don't "believe" in science. Everything ever discovered by a scientist can be shown to be true, can be demonstrated reliably (as in the same results happen over and over again)

#2) The term "transitional fossil" is misleading. Every fossil is a transitional fossil. Evolution is a dynamic process. It doesn't stop. You and I are transitional animals. Our race used to be something and is becoming something else.... all the time. This is why we have vestigial tails. This is why whales have fingers. No one needs to search for transitional fossils. They are all around us.

#3) Science has nothing to say, good or bad about God. Nothing. Science is a description of the universe. It is not supposition. It is not speculation. It is observation. If you deny science, then you deny things that are. The scientific process gave us all the technology you see around you, everything that is not part of your own flesh and bone was created by science, or a primitive version of it. Evolution is a description of a process. It doesn't have anything to say about how life began or how the universe began. It is observation of species variation. The basics of evolution have been used to create revolutionary drug therapies, forensic techniques, gene therapies. They have aided in the development of organ transplantation, and have been the basis for cures for severe diseases. If evolution was wrong, these discoveries WOULD NOT WORK, because they would be built on untruths and fabrications.

Evolution is. Simple, undeniable and above all: non-threatening to religion. At least if you're going to argue about it, understand what you are arguing about.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 3 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

However, if you explore science long enough you will find that what many people claim to be true , ends up being proven untrue latter on...nothing is absolute but God1


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 3 years ago from Wisconsin

Highvoltagewriter: People claiming something is true is not the same thing as a well established scientific theory. It is extremely rare that a discovery changes our basic understanding of the universe, and by extremely rare, I mean EXTREMELY rare. When it happens, it invariably turns out that because of advances in technology, we can see things that we couldn't see before. It sometimes challenges the assumptions we have made based on theories that aren't complete yet. It is not the theories themselves that are suspect, but our extrapolation based on the limited knowledge we used to have.

I give you an example. Physics and quantum physics have slightly different things to say about the universe. Physics explains the big stuff and quantum physics explains the small stuff. Currently they are two separate rule books, one for physics and one for Quantum physics. Quantum physicists have holes in their theory where they don't know what is happening, and physicists have holes in their theory that causes the same problem. There is endless speculation about what really inhabits those holes, and some of that speculation has turned into unwarranted assumptions. When we know more, those assumptions will probably turn out to be wrong.

However, the theories of quantum physics and regular physics will not be "destroyed" by new data. They will only be added to, changed and possibly at some point they will be unified so that one set of rules applies to both big stuff and small stuff. The only way science is altered in a "We knew this was happening and now it turns out that this is happening instead" is when someone makes a mistake and gets the wrong data. We got the wrong head on a dinosaur for decades before we finally found the right one. However, that doesn't invalidate the idea that dinosaurs exist, and something on the scale of "Well, we knew dinosaurs existed but it turns out they didn't" doesn't happen. I'll say that again, because I know some people will disagree with me, but I defy you to find an example of that happening. That DOESN'T happen. The body of knowledge for the existence of dinosaurs is too extensive. There are too many fossils, too many people who's studied them and come to the same conclusions independently of each other for there to be a "mistake" that brings the whole thing crumbling down.

As to God being absolute, I can't speak to that. As I said; science has nothing to say on the subject of God. No scientist worthy of the name will say that God can't exist, yet no scientific experiment has ever turned up even the slightest indication that he might exist, so the conclusion is "We don't know." And that's the end of that story. Debating whether God exists is fine, but if you think you have scientific evidence that he does exist, you probably are unaware of what "scientific evidence" actually means, or you are lying. Otherwise, you would be able to not only produce such evidence, but present it to the community of scientists and they will be able to replicate your research.

So if you meant that literally "what many people claim to be true ends up being proven untrue later on" then I can agree with you. People are like that. They like answers, and without hard evidence they will make up their own mind. When hard evidence then becomes available, they are (hopefully) forced to retract their statements and learn the way things REALLY are.

However, if you meant that scientific theory often turns out to be wrong, then that is untrue. When there is no data, science admits it. Scientific theories are built around data that has been replicated by a great many smart people, that has withstood people deliberately trying to prove it untrue. If a theory hangs around long enough it is because people have done their worst to it and it has survived... people who are experts at finding the weaknesses of a scientific theory and exploiting them, and in all but the rarest cases, a theory that turns out to be wrong only turns out to be partially wrong, and certainly not things like evolution, gravity, and all the things that our current technology is based on.

Against the assault that a scientific theory is under on a nearly constant basis from the beginning of the theory to the ends of the human race. by people who make a living trying to destroy theories and create their own, the chances that you can disprove something like Evolution is too remote to be considered a statistically more significant chance than 0%.

As I said about Evolution: we base practical science and medicine, treatments on the principles of Evolution. For evolution to be "wrong" those things that we're doing in genetics, new drug therapies, DNA forensics WOULD NOT WORK. The fact that they do work means there is something to evolution beyond just general ideas. This means that Evolution is as close to a fact that science can ever come, so if you think the scientific explanation of how a light bulb works is the truth, then Evolution is the truth too. Are we done with research on Evolution? Do we know everything? Of course not. We might even find out that bits of it aren't what we thought they were, but the basic understanding of Evolution is sound, until you can come up with something else that fits all the observable date BETTER than Evolution does. No one has been able to do that yet, and you haven't done that here either.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 3 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

The problem I see with evolution is that this form of science ignore certain things that does not fit into their agenda. For example, the blood that was found in the bones of the T Rex, or fossils of human foot prints that have been found in many places in the world.

Then there is the many hoaxes and conclusions that time has proven wrong. You got the Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man and the Once Man that turn out to be false or even hoaxes. Even "Ida" that was once claimed to be the eighth wonder of the world, had come under the debate as actually being "The Link" as actually claimed.I have written other hubs that go into this in more detail.

I am not against the idea that life does not adapt to survive, just that one type of animal can evolve from another.


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 3 years ago from Wisconsin

Evolution isn't a "form of science" it is science. The same method is used in paleontology that is used in physics, biology, geology, chemistry, whatever... If you trust the conclusions that chemists come up with about new compounds and their properties, then your default reaction to a paleontologist should be that they are correct when they say stuff about their field of study, which includes Evolution.

As far as the "hoaxes" are concerned, those were uncovered by.... wait for it... other scientists. They police their own better than anyone else could, and many of those hoaxes turned out to be perpetrated by people who weren't really scientists anyway. Are there unscrupulous scientists? Sure. I don't treat every religious person like they are Pat Robertson. I don't expect science to be judged as the minority of bad scientists would be judged. That's wrong.

Regarding those things that don't "fit into their agenda" I'm going to say this once, and only once. If you don't believe me you aren't living in reality - Scientists have no agenda. They research things and come up with conclusions that fit the facts. The most excited scientist in the world is one who has found something that radically changes our pre-conceived notions. Stephen Hawking eventually found out that the fundamental discovery he himself had made.... the one that had literally launched his rise to fame... was probably wrong. Scientists admit that they don't know everything and freely acknowledge that they could very well be wrong about their own research, but it takes more than someone else saying "I don't understand what you're saying" to do it. There is nothing that science "hangs on to" for the sake of not being wrong, and there is nothing a scientist will accept as a fact the way normal people use the word. They don't throw data away. They wait for other data to be discovered that puts everything into some kind of context. They don't ignore it unless it turns out to be false data. Far from ignoring the T-rex blood cells that were found, they are very excited about it. They just don't have any reason to believe that it means what Creationists think it means (ie the end of Evolution) It was IMPROBABLE that blood cell structure would survive millions of years in fossils, but not impossible. No one ever said it was impossible and any paleontologist can tell you how it can happen. This is what I mean by people criticizing Evolution without understanding it. Learn about it. Learn what Evolution claims and more importantly what it DOESN'T claim. THEN get into a debate about it. If you don't, you're just making an ass of yourself and not really accomplishing what you set out to.

For more about the "human" footprints, go here: http://www.badarchaeology.com/?page_id=178

If you buy the idea of variation within a species, then by extension you have to accept that a species can evolve into another species. For the same reason that every fossil is a transitional fossil, "species" is a label made up by man. Animals don't have a line separating one species from another. They change and evolve and evolve in small ways until those small changes have turned it into something completely else. We have arbitrarily separated species so that it is easier to catalog them and lump like with like out of convenience. Nature doesn't have to be convenient.

So never mind that you haven't explained how evolution could be wrong, yet everything that is build on it's principles seems to work just fine... go ahead and deny that evolution works. Deny that it exists, but please critique what Evolution IS, not what Creationists and the media SAY it is.


CJ Sledgehammer 3 years ago

Swordsbane:

You said, "Nothing about science has anything to do with faith", then you turn right around and say, "Our race used to be something and is becoming something else." You then cap it off with "Everything ever discovered by a scientist can be shown to be true."

Hmm. After statements like this, the only thing that comes to mind is either you have a powerful faith in "science" or you are easily led astray by men and women in white coats.

Be well - C.J. Sledgehammer


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 3 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Hay CJ so good to see you back! I appreciate you coming to my rescue for I have lost interest in debating over evolution....it seems like a lost cause!


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 3 years ago from Wisconsin

CJ: All of those statements are demonstrably true. Science accepts nothing on faith. Everything has to have evidence, or it doesn't get put into textbooks. Everything in the textbooks has been tested and found to be true, and is continually being retested to make sure nothing was missed. There is nothing that needs to be taken on faith. Anything questioned holds up to scrutiny. The "faith" you are talking about is simply the well documented track record of science.

If you simply don't believe in technology, I can't help you, but for my part, when the same process that brought us all the technology we benefit from today, (including our longer lifespans and our better quality of life) tells me something, I'm going to believe it until I have a reason not to. Not because I have faith in science but because there is plenty of evidence that they know what they're talking about and no evidence that those who dispute them know better.

My only "faith" in science is that it will eventually discover how everything in the universe functions, and even that faith is well founded. It is built on the body of work science has already produced.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 3 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Everything true in textbooks?? What ARE you smoking swordbane? You will have to PROVE that one, for it is just plane not true! I will do some research and get back to you to prove my point...But it is PURE bullsnot! Not only in science but also in histroy to name just a two subjects.


CJ Sledgehammer 3 years ago

Swordbane:

You stated, "Science accepts nothing on faith. Everything has to have evidence, or it doesn't get put into textbooks. Everything in the textbooks has been tested and found to be true, and is continually being retested to make sure nothing was missed. There is nothing that needs to be taken on faith. Anything questioned holds up to scrutiny."

-----------

And yet the same "scientists" that you rely upon found a tooth and then constructed an entire creature from that tooth...calling it the "Nebraska Man". The tooth then was discovered to be that of an extinct pig. Nebraska man made it into the science books, and even 80 years after it was proven to be a fraud...it still remained as evidence of evolution.

Your masters also said the Coelacanth (fish) had been extinct for 70 million years, but then one was found swimming around in 1938, looking just like the ones in the fossil records.

The list of wild-ass guesses from the scientic community could fill a library.

Regards - C.J. Sledgehammer


CJ Sledgehammer 3 years ago

HighVoltage:

You said, "CJ so good to see you back! I appreciate you coming to my rescue for I have lost interest in debating over evolution....it seems like a lost cause!

-------------

You don't need me, good friend, to come to your rescue. You have been defending the truth for a long time before I came around.

The problem for most people who "believe" in evolution is that they have been systematically brainwashed to accept rubbish as fact and never to question these authorities.

So, in this regard, it is a waste of time trying to communicate sound reason and rationale to those who have been trained to think without any. In fact, they don't think...they accept what they have been told and move on.

By the way, I have a feeling Swordsbane does not really believe everything he is saying. I think he just wants to pull your leg and have a little fun. No one can be that ignorant or naive. :0)

Best wishes and be well - C.J. Sledgahmmer


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 3 years ago from Wisconsin

Highvoltagewriter: Sorry, I should have been more specific. I was speaking of real science textbooks. Not textbooks written by unqualified people claiming to be scientists. Just because a book shows up in school, doesn't mean it is a real textbook, any more than someone is innocent or guilty just because a jury says so. The peer review process is how scientific Theories get published. Whether they wind up in school or not is a political decision, unfortunately.


CJ Sledgehammer 3 years ago

Swordsbane:

You said, "I should have been more specific. I was speaking of real science textbooks. Not textbooks written by unqualified people claiming to be scientists".

Is there another kind? It would seem they are all unequally qualified to discuss the origins of life.

-----------------------

So, how do we, the people, know the difference between REAL scientists and the unqualified jokers who pose as real scientists?

I would also like to add that the rubbish that is put in many textbooks (as scientific fact) has been peer-reviewed and blessed by the scientific community. And, this same rubbish that is often taught to the masses is used to brainwash and misinform the next generation of science-fiction fanatics, who endorse these fallacies wholeheartedly.

Be well - C.J. Sledgehammer


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 3 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Here is just on exsample of false information in textbooks...http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?cat... I will be back to give more


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 3 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Okay here is yet another one...http://www.tc.umn.edu/~allch001/papers/lies.pdf I can do this all day if you want....


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 3 years ago from Wisconsin

CJSH: The difference is in what the REAL scientists say vs what the media and pseudo-scientists SAY they say. It is readily apparent, and no. False information in textbooks is NOT peer reviewed. Old and outdated science that no one thought to remove was peer reviewed at one time, but that hardly counts as the blessing of the current scientific community.

HVW: The simple reason many textbooks have erroneous information in them is that politicians and school administrators (mostly politicians) pick science text books instead of teachers and scientists. The text book publishers market to these politician's school districts (mostly for Texas) and then other schools follow suit. There ARE real, unbiased science textbooks out there, but those aren't the one's that schools usually get for their classrooms. University textbooks (or even city colleges) are better.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 3 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

Yep...blaim it on the polotitiicans! What I see is a form of brain-washing going on, that allows only books that agree with what scientis feel what is truth to be presented to the public. This does not only happen with science but in history as well.


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 3 years ago from Wisconsin

HV: The same textbooks you seem to be upset about, the scientists themselves are upset about, and yes I blame it on the politicians because THEY are the one's in charge of picking the textbooks. There is no one else to blame.


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 3 years ago from Savannah GA. Author

And so SB who is behind the politicians? The powerful that want to contiue to controle the masses! Let us go back to the first link I used about Hackel, who's chart was used in the textbooks of his day and for many years later...BUT was proven to be wrong!


swordsbane profile image

swordsbane 3 years ago from Wisconsin

HV: "Let us go back to the first link I used about Hackel, who's chart was used in the textbooks of his day and for many years later...BUT was proven to be wrong!"

Yes let's. I know a lot of scientists who are upset at that very thing. Your suggestion that it is scientists who are behind these sorts of things staying in textbook is false.


wmcdougherty@cs.com 10 months ago

Your grasp of science is amazing were you home schooled or slept through science classes? Evolution proven. Abiogenesis, study of the beginning of life. Big bang, Physics. Geology, the study of the earth. Please read and learn something of what u critique. I have gone to and lead bible and religious classes read the bible cover to cover many times it makes no sense and i abandoned the idea of seminary. Please read and learn everything around your ideas!


Highvoltagewriter profile image

Highvoltagewriter 10 months ago from Savannah GA. Author

And yet the Big Bang is still being debated! Evolution proven? Says who? One species evoking into another has NOT been proven!

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working