jump to last post 1-18 of 18 discussions (309 posts)

Evolutionary Advance?

  1. EmVeeT profile image80
    EmVeeTposted 4 years ago

    I came to the HubPages Forum several months ago posting a "challenge" that must have seemed presumptuous (though I didn't intend it) or (perhaps) arrogant of me... By the end of it though, I considered my beliefs to be as substantial, if not moreso, than those of anyone who came to check out 'the challenge".

    I might say, "somehow the discussion turned to one accentuating beliefs in Evolution against those of Creationism". The fact is though, the theories of Evolution are diametrically opposed to Creationism and seemingly undergird the foundational structures upon which many atheists base their (supposed) non-belief. This caused me to realize that my understanding of "the theories of evolution" were outdated. For this reason, I decided to revisit the subject and research ideas related to the great debate on whether it takes more faith to believe in Creationism, or The Theories of Evolution.

    During my investigations I came upon some rather amazing information that I do not feel equipped to paraphrase; therefore, I initially thought to use direct quotes. However, I discovered so many incredible authoritative minds had changed ideologies, once supporting them in a belief toward Evolution, redirecting them to a belief in Creationism, that I decided rather, to post a few purely incontrovertible quotes from just one individual. I might have selected Anthony Flew, a former atheist, but I chose another rather highly esteemed authority on the subject: Dr. Richard Lumsden, whose degrees were earned at Harvard.

    Here goes:

    This scenario was experienced by Dr. Lumsden when he still taught and believed in Evolution:

    A student requested to see him, so she might ask some relevant questions in order to clarify a lecture she had attended from one of his classes. One question she asked of Dr. Lumsden, "how do you go from amino acids to proteins? Together they examined the mathematical/chemical equations taught in association with the theory, and having analyzed the formula found in the text book(s) and taught in his lecture Dr. Richard Lumsden responded: 'those reactions just don't happen in the real world".

    A graduate from Harvard University, and professor of several scientifically based subjects, Dr. Lumsden was 'challenged' to review his facts against statements in text books and in his teachings. The result: Dr. Lumsden realized "...in the context of evolution everything (referring to actual facts)  just phases out and you follow the litany... it's a religious exercise, not an exercise in science."

    Furthermore, Dr. Lumsden says, "...those chemical reactions that are propounded in text books today just DON'T HAPPEN, and they CAN'T HAPPEN that way by the physics and chemistry we know...".

    When forced to ask himself, "how", since he taught 'mutations were disastrous accidents", could he consider "mutations (to) be a driving force for evolutionary progression?" he had no response.

    Progressing from his analysis, Dr. Lumsden re-examined his 'faith' in Evolution and decided there was no proof to substantiate his atheistic stance. Like many other former atheists he has since become a Believer in Creationism and God.

    My question to all of you (Evolutionists) is simple: If a professor of Harvard could be brought to realize that the evolutionary theories are inconsistent with the 'supposed' science provided to support them, what basis do you have for your belief in 'the Theories of Evolution'?

    Please do not make your response personal attacks. I am only a simple female. I don't have the scientific credentials to reply to any of your questions. That is why I studied the statements and analyses of those who do.

    (You may find an elaborate testimony of Dr. Lumsden's change of heart here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s91-ABJ4 … re=related).

    1. autumn18 profile image67
      autumn18posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      First off, I wouldn't call myself an evolutionist. He's one man. His experience and personal revelations aren't going to topple the whole foundation of the scientific theory of evolution. If you go looking for something to support your idea that evolution is just a belief and not fact and that creationism is valid then you are going to find stuff like this. To me it doesn't change that evolution is an accepted scientific theory.

      1. EmVeeT profile image80
        EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hey Autumn18!

        Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your view.

        You said, "To me it doesn't change that evolution is an accepted scientific theory."

        I agree wholeheartedly. Evolution is an 'accepted scientific theory'. Still, it remains just that... a theory.

        You also said, "He's one man"

        You are right about this as well. He is one man who has a Ph. D. in Evolution and teaches as a professor although I don't know where he teaches. Although, being a Ph. D. graduate from Harvard speaks volumes, even in the Scientific community.

        What I also know is that: Darwin was 'just one man' too. Moreover, the scientific facts structured during his lifetime were not 'evolved' enough to prove or disprove his "THEORIES" at that time. Since then, the fabric of science has developed in such leaps and bounds now that another HUGE SCIENTIFIC Ex-Atheist Figure "Anthony Flew" has also changed his mind based on the findings related to genetic DNA/RNA structures.

        I could mention others as well, but then, you are right when you said, "If you go looking for something to support your idea that evolution is just a belief and not fact and that creationism is valid then you are going to find stuff like this."

        What you can do though, (and I don't have the scientific degree/qualifications to do this, that's why I didn't) is prove beyond any doubt that what this man (Dr Lumsden) has publicly declared to be true, is actually false. Then you will have made a point against Creationism and 'for Evolution'.

        You see, science is not just theories. There are mathematical equations, biological and genetic manifestations that either support or define provisions for substantiation. Within those parameters the structures of veracity for a theory can be analyzed, discovered, or proven, and even disproved. When nothing points to the veracity of a theory, then I question the loyalty to such a belief. Of course, the variable is man. Man has a brain. The brain can choose to decide whatever it wants... true/false...  these factors don't count...

        In society today, the marketing for 'truth' has become subjective. in other words, 'what is true to you' has been pushed as correct. This lowers the standard(s) for all of us.

        Just some food for thought.

        Again thanks for your comment.

        GOD Bless you.

        1. autumn18 profile image67
          autumn18posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          True but I still think a lot of times people confuse scientific theory with plain old theory when they are not the same. I do agree though that even scientific theories can be wrong and that's why they should be continually tested and explored.



          That makes sense and I agree.



          That may be true which is why I think the key is education and having an open mind. I have no problem with people having belief and faith in a higher being and I think there can be room for science and facts and belief. It's all how a person looks at it. I enjoy the food for thought. smile

    2. pennyofheaven profile image82
      pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The theory of evolution and the theory of creation both attempt to describe our origins. Both theories are of what is largely unknown. No theory is better than the other.

      1. autumn18 profile image67
        autumn18posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I don't see it as one being better than the other rather that they aren't even comparable. Remember that evolution is a "scientific" theory which means it's based on scientific facts. Creationism isn't a scientific theory and therefore isn't based on facts and tests like evolution.

        1. pennyofheaven profile image82
          pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Why not comparable? Adam was made from the earth. Organisms are from the earth.

          Only difference I see is in their approach to describing our origins is one theory is scholarly the other is not.

          Kinda like.

          In the days of old carpenters were taught how to build through experience and after a time were recognized as qualified carpenters. Nowadays they need to learn the scholarly method first and obtain a certificate and are instantly recognized as qualified carpenters in theory only.  Then they go on to learn by practical experience. 

          After a time carpenters of old were still carpenters. After a time carpenters nowadays are still carpenters.

          1. cascoly profile image60
            cascolyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            there's no evidence for your adam claim- it's just a fairy tale that some people believe

            evolution [which does NOT even address the origin of life] is a proven FACT supported by a hundred years of scientific evidence.  to equate the 2 is either willful ignorance or dishonest, since this issue has been beaten to death

            1. autumn18 profile image67
              autumn18posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Well said. I concur.

            2. EmVeeT profile image80
              EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Hey Cascoly....

              I am not being willfully dishonest or beating the issue to death.

              Will you be so kind as to provide ONE PIECE of EVIDENTIAL FACT... not a link... anyone can post a link... NOT ANOTHER THEORY, the whole subject is A THEORY. Please PRINT THE FACT you base your scientific platform of belief upon.

              I would appreciate the lesson.

              Remember, not an ideology, philosophy, area of study... ONE FACT.

              Thanks, I appreciate the opportunity to learn from others.

              GOD BLESS you.
              smile

            3. pennyofheaven profile image82
              pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              What evidence? Evidence that is disputed even among the scholars?

              You may view it how you wish. Scientific theory however is just that a theory yet to be proven false. Just as creation is. We all know neither theory can be proven false or otherwise. So it is possible so it will probably get beaten to death more.

              1. A Troubled Man profile image59
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The evidence of evolution may be disputed for one reason or another, but it does not dispute the theory of evolution itself.



                That is entirely false, creationism in not a theory nor has it any evidence or any capacity to be falsified. It is a belief.



                So far, we only have creationists who beat to death fabrications and false premises and their lack of understanding of evolution and science in general.

                1. pennyofheaven profile image82
                  pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  If scholars can't agree they must be disputing the theory. Or what else do you think they would be disputing?

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image59
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    They are usually disputing the very fine details of new evidence, which makes it's way to the peer review process. They most certainly aren't disputing the postulates of evolution or decreeing them evil or un-God-like, nor are they fabricating lies to refute it.

      2. EmVeeT profile image80
        EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Fair enough, Penny of Heaven. I think your comment is honest and clear.

        But can you honestly say, 'no theory is better than the other'? Or...

        Might it be a fair to suggest you have not personally chosen one 'theory' over another, but are willing to forego the opportunity of discovering whether there are fallacies being projected by one over the other, so as not to disturb your conscience?

        Remember, mine is just a hypothesis.

        I'm looking to find out what motivates those individuals who have chosen one theory over the other to share their reasons. Therefore, I hope you don't mind my urging you analyze all the possibilities.

        GOD BLESS you.

        1. pennyofheaven profile image82
          pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes I can honestly say I do not see one theory is better than the other. Mainly because of the unknown aspects of each theory. It could turn out, one theory may confirm the other and vice versa.

          1. aguasilver profile image87
            aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Good point, speaking personally, I care not one jot for which concept is correct, I made my personal decision, and have the relationship with God that confirms that (for me) it was the correct decision.

            It may be that God started the 'brew' and then stepped back (maybe busy with other 'creations') and decided to let the whole thing ferment for a period, or it may be that He watches every action and keeps a divine account for each member, with a spiritual tally stick. i.e evolution may have some relevance to our progress or none.

            Either way I am satisfied, if I am to be judged by God, I have been fairly made aware of His impending judgement....... if we are just the logical progression of a primordial soup, so be it.

            I can only live my life as I see fit to do so, to be judged by God or judged by history, my decisions will determine how I am judged.

            1. pennyofheaven profile image82
              pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              So does God say evolution theory is not part of Gods creation? Why would you be judged by accepting all of God's creations?

              1. EmVeeT profile image80
                EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Hi Penny.

                GOD doesn't say anything about the theory of Evolution one way or the other. Perhaps, one of the reasons that Evolutionists and Creationists don't see eye to eye is the idea that Evolution leaves no room for GOD.

                So, what you have just said wouldn't go over well for most people, maybe some on each side.

                Thanks for your comment. It's appreciated.
                GOD BLESS you.
                smile

                1. pennyofheaven profile image82
                  pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  No it never normally does go over well with most people. However, I really don't see what all the fuss is about. God created. Evolution created. Perhaps it is just the labels we use to describe what is largely unknown. If creationist believe God created all things then there should be no question as to how God brought things into existence. If Evolutionist do not believe in God it does not matter evolution is how things came into existence.

                  Both views are not that different.

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image59
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Evolution is well known while creationism is not, simply because one has mountains of evidence to support it while the other has nothing but beliefs to support it.



                    LOL! They are at either ends of the scale, one actually not really having anything to do with reality.

      3. Paul Wingert profile image81
        Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Biblical creation is NOT a theory. A theory is defined as a a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena. Bibliical creation is a cute story based on nothing.

        1. aguasilver profile image87
          aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          ...except the combined personal experiences of billions of people who communicate or have communicated with God over several millennium.... (you forgot to add that). smile

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            No offense intended aqua. But is it your testimony that God, himself, has conveyed to you, and billions others, the exact details on how life began on earth? Biblical interpretation set aside, since all believers fail to agree on this topic. You can't reference a number in the billions unless you are all in complete agreement.

            1. aguasilver profile image87
              aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              ...and no offence taken! smile

              What we billions do seem to have agreed upon is that we have experienced a personal relationship with God, and liked it, and frankly HOW God created the whole thing is irrelevant, at least to the point in question, which was refuting Paul's assertions: "Biblical creation is a cute story based on nothing."

              Biblical creation may not be to Paul's liking, but as a concept, it has as much validity as 'it all came from a big bang and sort of evolved into the most wonderfully complexed life-force all by itself'.

              Short of having a time machine, we will simply never be able to confirm what happened.

              1. 0
                Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I have no problem with the assumption of the existence of God and you are correct, I think. In that theories on the beginning all sound pretty much the same. It's all a game of faith at this point. We are either thumped on the head with the Bible, or Dawkins.

                I always wonder why, since you guys are all living on faith in your own conclusions, it's important to attempt to get others to jump on board.

                Do you think that proves a lack of faith? I'm beginning to have my suspicions.

                1. aguasilver profile image87
                  aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  No, I don't think it's a lack of faith, least not for those who have experienced something that changed their lives... I reply to posts when I think the poster has slanted the subject, or is trying to score a point that MAY cause someone just starting in faith to falter.

                  We are all pretty much the same composition in terms of humanity, our flesh and blood, but our minds and aspirations are widely different and magnificent, or dreary, and the direction our minds take depend very much upon our experiences and exposure to what this world offers us educationally, culturally and in terms of nurture.

                  We also need to shake of our preconceptions, preferably on a regular basis, as we have all moved position on something which at some point in our history, which we held to be sacrosanct, but now see as a prior error, a part of the learning process.

                  We are human beings, attempting to make sense of what (IMO) is a spiritual experience.

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I can agree with that.

              2. EmVeeT profile image80
                EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Aquasilver, you said,

                HOW God created the whole thing is irrelevant.

                This is true. Absolutely true.

                Emile R said, "It's all ... faith ..."

                That's exactly right.

                Aquasilver you also said:

                We are all pretty much the same composition in terms of humanity, our flesh and blood, but our minds and aspirations are widely different and magnificent, or dreary, and the direction our minds take depend very much upon our experiences and exposure to what this world offers us educationally, culturally and in terms of nurture.

                Insightful. Accurate. Fair. Considerate,  smile

                Then you said:

                We also need to shake of our preconceptions, preferably on a regular basis, as we have all moved position on something which at some point in our history, which we held to be sacrosanct, but now see as a prior error, a part of the learning process.  We are human beings, attempting to make sense of what (IMO) is a spiritual experience.

                You know Aquasilver, you hit the nail on the head when you said, "we also need to shake off our preconceptions..."... I would add to that ~ life circumstances will bring us to do so. The problem is, so many people have carved particular views into their brain even if there is absolutely no evidence for such a precept to exist... and pride keeps them from revisiting the reason to hold onto those views  even if there is really no reason whatsoever to adhere to them.

                I may be wrong but I believe no matter "how the world came together...", sooner or later, everyone will face the question of whether or not GOD Exists. Even those who don't know to call HIM GOD understand a Designer exists.

                How many would ever come up with the concept of  "nothing turning into a living organism, then evolving into a human being when contemplating the meaning of life, the purpose of existence, or the validity of striving toward excellence?

                I consider the fact that for the tribal native living in the jungle, the thought that the reason man exists boils down to nothing somehow generating into something alive, vibrant, intelligent even would never occur. In other words, no one would believe in Evolution if this philosophy were not taught. However, many would still believe in GOD.

                Call me simple if you like. That is my view.

                Thank you both for your comments. They are appreciated.
                GOD BLESS you.
                smile

              3. pennyofheaven profile image82
                pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I tend to agree about the how. I enjoy the invention of the computer every day. How it came in to existence I care little about. I appreciate my ability to breathe every day yet I do not know how it is possible but it is.

        2. pennyofheaven profile image82
          pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Scientifically that would be true. Whether or not creation was based on nothing, would be subject to how you view the written accounts. Some would say creation is based on observations and claims made in the day.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image59
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            By whom, exactly?

            1. kathleenkat profile image89
              kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I don't recall exactly the name, but I recall watching a series of documentaries about how biblical stories reflect observations made by people of that age, however did not have the understanding of things as we do today, so described these events in a way which made sense to them at that time with their understandings.

              One of the examples was how in Bible, it states something along the lines of "stars falling from the sky" onto the city of Solom (correct me if I'm wrong, I have never actually read the Bible), and that people have found evidence of a volcanic eruption around that time, and perhaps these stars were actually hot rocks from the volcano. This would also match a description in the Bible about how people were instantly incinerated near where the stars fell, as, well, hot magma is pretty damn hot and would certainly incinerate someone.

              Edit: And if you didn't have an understanding of what exactly stars even were, you would probably assume that hot glowing things that are falling out of the sky are probably stars, too.

              1. EmVeeT profile image80
                EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Hi Kathleenkat!

                I appreciate your comments. (Thank you also for your honesty about never having read The Bible.) Your mention of 'stars falling out of the sky' I will approximate to the verses found in Isaiah 14, where the subject is Lucifer's fall from heaven. It says, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" (Isaiah 14:12). The next verse describes how the inspiration of rebellion originated in his heart for which he was cast out of heaven. The mention of 'stars' relates to concept that he thought to place himself higher than GOD

                Isaiah 14:13-14 says, " For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High."

                Perhaps, this is to what you are referring, since mention of Sodom provides  information about angels visiting Lot,  but not stars falling from the sky. Genesis 19 says, "rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire ...".

                Please do not be offended at my posting two separate verses trying to piece together what you have attempted to state. I am not trying to show you that you don't know what you are talking about.... I am just showing that there is no connection between Sodom and stars of which I am aware.

                There is another place where those who read The Bible associate "stars and angels". This is in The Book of Revelation. Chapter 12, verses 3-4, where it says, "And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth...".

                Here "the stars of heaven" are considered by Biblical Scholars to refer to fallen angels. As it is believed one-third of the Angelic Host fell from grace along with Lucifer when he was exiled from GOD's Kingdom.

                All that aside though, Kathleenkat, you have made a very strong point. You see, archaeology, astronomy and history have each PROVEN MANY FACTS found in THE BIBLE.

                For example, "The Battle of Jericho". When the city of Jericho was discovered, the walls of that city were all found to have collapsed, And GOD is SO AMAZING as not to allow for error. Because in the account of the invasion of Jericho, by the children of Israel, GOD told them, they were  to march around the city for six days, silently. On the seventh day, they were to shout the PRAISES of GOD, with the ARK of The Covenant in front of the entire parade, and the Levites leading. When they shouted, The Bible reports the "walls (of Jericho) came tumbling down" (my paraphrase).

                When Archaeologists discovered Jericho, the walls had indeed were collapsed. HOWEVER, they were found to have fallen outward from the city, not inward. The significance of this discovery is AWESOME, because you see, many naysayers would have liked to state that the people of Israel had pushed the walls in... (as though mere humans could push 12 foot thick walls in just by pressing against them). But the walls were collapsed OUTWARDLY. And everyone must certainly agree, the people of Jericho would not have helped Israel invade their city by pushing the walls down from the inside out.

                Cool no?

                Anyway... your documentary may (possibly) have some association to what you mentioned. However, the factors are disparate. They do not link to anything mentioned in The Word of GOD.

                Thanks for this contribution though. I appreciate this train of thought.

                You also say, "biblical stories reflect observations made by people of that age, however did not have the understanding of things as we do today, so described these events in a way which made sense to them at that time with their understandings."

                Documentaries are often filled with the opinions of those that do not believe The Bible to be The Word of GOD, And, the documentary you watched might have been a very good one. However, there are also documentaries out there that accentuate the fact that archaeological discoveries give evidence of the very advanced techniques in history, practices such as brain surgery, for which there was no technology.

                My point: if ancient history shows that human beings engaged in such activities as brain surgery, without the use of high powered technology such as we have today, are we really more intelligent now? Do we really have greater understanding today? The concept is questionable, and debatable.

                Again, thanks for your comments. Your view is much appreciated.

                GOD BLESS you.
                smile

                1. cascoly profile image60
                  cascolyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  interesting - you refuse to accept as  fact any of the mountains of evidence about evolution, yet you still claim as fact old stories about jericho.   nothing you have stated PROVES that jericho was arracked by joshua and that the walls fell in the way the bible describes;  non-supernatural means are much more likely -- eg fire

                  the actual archeaology of jericho is much more complicated than you claim --

                  eg
                  "By the post-war period a revolution had occurred in archaeological methodology... Kenyon dug over 1952-1958 and traced the entire history of the city from the earliest Neolithic settlement. She did this by digging a narrow deep trench maintaining clean, squared off edges, rigorously examining the soil and recording its stratification, and thus building up a cross-section of the tell. ...... Kenyon reported that her work showed Garstang to have been wrong and the Germans right - Jericho had been deserted at the accepted Biblical date of the Conquest. Her result was corroborated in 1995 by radiocarbon tests which dated test samples taken from the site to 1562 BCE (plus/minus 38 years) with a certainty of 95%.["
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jericho


                  there is much more evidence against bible historical claims than there is for it - especially for the period before david/solomon, which includes the entire exodus story

                  ===archaeological discoveries give evidence of the very advanced techniques in history, practices such as brain surgery, for which there was no technology
                     not sure what exactly you're referring to, but if you mean trepanning, you're again on shaky ground -- that's not brain surgery - it's drilling a hole in the skull - this may relieve pressure from subdural hematomas, but is unlikely to cure migraines  or other diseases and is hardly comparable to modern neurosurgery

                  1. EmVeeT profile image80
                    EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Hi Cascoly.

                    You are so intent on proving me wrong in everything I say. Yet you have not provided SOLID EVIDENCE TO PROVE EVOLUTION IS A FACT. Links don't cut it.

                    You don't have to believe anything I say. I will not bother to place a link so you can read whether or not I am correct. You are intent on proving me 'ignorant'.

                    If you think I am, I cannot change your mind. However, I disagree. Earlier you said the responsibility to disprove Evolution is on me because I am the one questioning its validity, credibility, veracity. Well, guess what. i have.

                    I asked you to PROVE IMMUTABLY that Evolution IS, you have not.

                    Your attempts to change the subject or cause me to appear less than capable of addressing the issue are boring to me. I won't engage in them.

                    I am not diminished by your accusations. I believe to have provided substantial logic to support my position. You don't agree.

                    Fine.

                    GOD BLESS you.
                    smile

            2. pennyofheaven profile image82
              pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Who do you think?

    3. A Troubled Man profile image59
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That's it? That's the reason the good Dr. Lumsden gave up all logic and reason to drop everything and become a Creationist, because he concluded, "those chemical reactions don't happen"

      Sorry, but that is the worst possible explanation I've ever heard from a so-called "graduate from Harvard University, and professor of several scientifically based subjects"

      A rather pointless OP.

      1. aguasilver profile image87
        aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Not at all TM, the guy was obviously top of his field and well respected, and if he discovered that what he has accepted as correct (without prior critical examination) was actually incorrect, he was behaving in a perfectly scientific manner by discarding the false evidence he became aware of, and exploring the new evidence that came forth after realising that what he previously believed was incorrect.

        Still glad to see you back! smile

        John

        1. A Troubled Man profile image59
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Whatever he believed, he did not offer any valid explanations that refuted evolution. Making statements like "just don't happen" are not explanations.

          If anyone has any papers by the good doctor showing his results, I would be happy to see them. Without any of it, the OP is pointless and is little more than a declaration of faith.

          1. aguasilver profile image87
            aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Good point, but would the guy throw away his whole career without evidence?

            He could hardly tow the party line once he changed his understanding...

            Maybe there is evidence out there of his refutation, right now I have to be at the airport in 8 hours time, so cannot look before Friday (Thursday night your time!)

            1. A Troubled Man profile image59
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              If all we have for evidence by the good doctor is contained in the OP, then that would appear to be the case.

          2. autumn18 profile image67
            autumn18posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Agreed

        2. cascoly profile image60
          cascolyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          however, he never presented any evidence!   [he died in 1997]  he seems to be just another born again who regurgitates all the tired arguments [supposedly] against evolution without actually presenting ANY scientific evidence.

          it's called the argument from incrdulity -- "gee, i cant imagine how this happened ...THEREFORE it never happened"

          1. EmVeeT profile image80
            EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Dear Cascoly,

            You said, "it's called the argument from incrdulity -- "gee, i cant imagine how this happened ...THEREFORE it never happened"

            Are you referring to a Harvard Scholar basing a complete change of study upon an inability to "imagine how this happened" and then concluding, "THEREFORE it never happened"...

            I'm sorry but unless you provide a better argument I will have to pretend I never read those words, they are absolutely .... well.... to me, they make no sense.

            You see, you said, "the tired arguments [supposedly] against evolution without actually presenting ANY scientific evidence."

            In a court of law: "The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation to shift the accepted conclusion away from an oppositional opinion to one's own position."
            (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof)

            Since the concept of Creationism existed long before the 'theory of Evolution" the burden of proof legally rests upon Evolutionists.

            That is my position.

            GOD BLESS you.
            smile

            1. cascoly profile image60
              cascolyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              your position is irrelevant - this is not a legal question - if anything  the position is reversed - evolution is a scientifically accepted fact.  the onus is on any challenging theory [lamarkism, creationism, intelligent design] to prove ITS case..

    4. kathleenkat profile image89
      kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Since theories are based from scientific evidence, I suppose the theory of evolution would change to conform to what the scientific evidence shows.

      If a theory is inconsistent with the evidence, then it becomes obsolete, or must conform.

      Without scientific evidence? I have no basis in my 'belief' (a scientific theory is not a 'belief,' as a religion is, by the way).


      This evidence is also nearly impossible to refute: It is within the fossil record as well as within genetics (we share all but two chromosomes with chimpanzees).

    5. twosheds1 profile image60
      twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I Googled this story, and found a copy of the late Dr. Lumsden's dissertation. The story needs a little help.

      Evolution is "just a theory." Indeed, but what is a theory? Theories aren't pulled out of one's nethers. Theories are built over time by acquiring evidence to support a hypothesis. If the evidence doesn't support the hypothesis, the hypothesis is tossed out. It is only after a long period of time, with confirmation accross many disciplines, that a hypothesis, such as "life evolved on Earth by a process of natural selection from earlier forms over a period of billions of years," to a theory that explains HOW that took place. When you say "I have a theory..." what you really mean is that you have a hypothesis.

      Regardless, one biologist denying 150 years of evidence does not destroy a theory. You produce one biologist that denies evolution, I can produce a thousand or more who say that it is perfectly compatible with the evidence, and acknowledge that amino acids DO form into proteins. The argument from ignorance is not a valid argument, and if there are gaps in evolutionary theory (which there aren't) that doesn't mean that the exact opposite, for which there is zero evidence, is true. Had we been satisfied with not knowing how the world works, we would still be living in caves.

      1. EmVeeT profile image80
        EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hi Twosheds1,

        150 years of what some have inclined toward considering evidence does nothing to answer the question I posted. I didn't ask you for a description of the history of study. I understand that sort of evolution.

        So far, a number of really intelligent, clear, concise, deliberate and masterful observations have been posted on this thread. What has not been posted, by you or by anyone else... is ONE CLEAR FACT, not probable point, not plausible evidence, not supposed thought, conjecture, ideology, philosophy etc.,. Just ONE SOLID, ABSOLUTE FACT pertaining to the manner in which Evolution is PROVEN.

        In other words, I have done my homework, (not based on one individual and his claims to conversion or thoughts dissuading him of his position); however, in the course of my efforts i have not come across ONE SOLID FACT PROVING EVOLUTION IS TRUE.

        If you can answer how, life EVOVLED out of NOTHING. ... not beginning with that one-celled organism that is proclaimed to be the first fruit of the tree of life, but THE NOTHING THAT CAME BEFORE the one-celled organism.... HOW DID NOTHING COME ALIVE?...

        If you can do that... then ...

        Well... if you can answer that, you will have all the evidence BIOLOGY, ARCHAEOLOGY, HISTORY, or any other study on the face of this earth NEEDS in order to VERIFY the THEORY of Evolution.

        If you cannot PROVE that to me... everything else you write is a moot point. I'm sorry I cannot believe your word over GOD. I will take GOD's WORD over your word, or explanation or thoughts, or analysis, or.... or... or....  on every point you will ever make.

        You see, all I asked for at the beginning of this thread was that someone present... one SOLID PROVEN, IMMUTABLE FACT. Such a presentation might have the ability, the capacity, the potential to help me understand why so many people take on BLIND FAITH that Evolution is real.

        In my mind: Evolution is a false theory. The Science pertaining to EVOLUTION is false Science.

        Calling me stupid (using various manifestation of indirect expression) won't harm one hair on my head. If you're so smart, PROVE to me I'm wrong.

        I don't have anything else to say on the subject.

        You have NOT PROVEN anything. Therefore, I continue in my position. PROVE me wrong, and I will consider what you have spoken to have merit.

        GOD BLESS you.
        smile

        1. A Troubled Man profile image59
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          And, that's the bottom line, isn't it. It has nothing to do with understanding evolution and everything to do with your belief system.

          1. EmVeeT profile image80
            EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Troubled Man, Troubled Man, Troubled Man...

            Did you ever think maybe it is your trust in things that do not exist that makes you so troubled?

            You want to accuse me of 'not understanding evolution' as a result of my belief system. You can try. But I think I've shown that if ONE IMMUTABLE FACTUAL PIECE of EVIDENCE can be given to show the evolution of NOTHING, pure, vacant, hollow, imaginary NOTHING somehow coming to life ...if it could be PROVEN... I may be inclined to reconsider my  position.

            GOD BLESS you, Sir.
            GOD BLESS you, truly.
            smile

            1. autumn18 profile image67
              autumn18posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Part of understanding evolution is knowing that it's not about nothing somehow coming to life. That's not what evolution is.

            2. A Troubled Man profile image59
              A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It's the other way round, I trust in things that exist.



              I think you made your position quite clear in previous posts...



            3. twosheds1 profile image60
              twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You're using the argument from ignorance: I don't understand X, therefore Y. It is a logical fallacy. Organic molecules are abundant in the universe, and on the early Earth they found conditions that were conducive for life, and life arose. The process isn't fully understood, I agree, but to give up trying to find out how it happened and to say "God did it," admits defeat and accepts ignorance.

              For more information, you might want to read the "abiogenesis" entry in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

              Also reference my statement about "proven facts" below.

              1. EmVeeT profile image80
                EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Hey there, Twosheds1,

                You said, "Organic molecules are abundant in the universe, and on the early Earth they found conditions that were conducive for life, and life arose. The process isn't fully understood, I agree, but to give up trying to find out how it happened and to say "God did it," admits defeat and accepts ignorance. "

                I can say, "GOD did it" with as much confidence as you can do so.

                You admit (finally someone does~ I applaud you for this... thank you for doing so...) that "the process isn't fully understood. That's not much, but I'll take it.

                Then you place another link for me to check out.

                I can read the link, but the link proves NOTHING.

                Did you read on this page that this is a STUDY?

                Did you read that this is: "In particular, the term usually refers to the processes by which life on Earth may have arisen." (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis). In other words, this is one more STUDY TRYING TO PROVE A THEORY, a HYPOTHESIS, an ASSUMPTION.

                So? ... a "term" which refers " to the processes by which life on Earth may have arisen"

                A term... referring to something that MAY HAVE ARISEN? Wow! That is your proof?

                Your link teaches me nothing.

                Twosheds1, all I am requesting is ONE SOLID PIECE of EVIDENCE. If you cannot provide this, no study will be good enough to change my view. You can call me defeated if you like. You can say I "accept ignorance[/i]. if this makes you feel better.

                The trouble is, you have NOT CHANGED the FACTS by what you say. I am who I happen to be. You don't know me. However, I am inviting you to educate me... not with MORE THEORIES, STUDIES, HOPES and ASSUMPTIONS, I am inviting you to PROVE TO ME THAT WHAT YOU TRUST IS FACT HAS A BASIS of TRUTH attached to it.

                You cannot. Science cannot. None Exist. Call me whatever you like. FACTS are. Such is the truth.

                If you cannot provide any FACT, you cannot keep arguing that I am ignorant, or I am defeated. I do not accept your statements as true, any more than I accept your lack of factual evidence.

                GOD BLESS you.
                smile

        2. kathleenkat profile image89
          kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You talk about "blind faith" here, but do you not yourself have blind faith in God? Have you met God? Have you seen seen solid facts and evidence proving He is real?

          I am not trying to undermine your religion. I am trying to help you see things the way others (those of us who believe Evolution to be true) are seeing things. We believe what we do because it makes sense to us. I am sure the same can be said about you.

          1. EmVeeT profile image80
            EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Hello Kathleenkat,

            You said, "You talk about "blind faith" here, but do you not yourself have blind faith in God? Have you met God? Have you seen seen solid facts and evidence proving He is real?"

            How very kind of you to ask. Actually, I have experienced something very real pertaining to GOD and my faith. I will not address the issue here, because this thread is not about my experience. However, by experience I can tell you, without any doubt, fear or apprehension, "GOD IS VERY REAL." The fact that many do not know HIM doesn't change this fact.

            Thank you for being considerate enough to say you are, "...not trying to undermine (my) religion."

            The truth of the matter is, I don't have a 'religion'. What I believe about GOD is very personal, very real and based completely, and solely on my experiences as well as my understanding from years, months, weeks, days and hours poured into getting to [i]know HIM better
            . I say 'know' because that is what I have: knowledge of GOD. This knowledge is an intimate relationship that has nothing to do with worldly intimacy, but everything to do with spiritual intimacy. This knowledge is the very element related to 'faith' that most people ignore, rebuff, reject, doubt when it comes to GOD, but are willing to engage when dealing with the occult or with things secular.

            Kathleenkat,

            I'm not trying to undermine your 'belief in evolution' either. What I am trying to do is bring to surface one truth that most believers in 'Evolution' refuse to admit. That truth: you are believing in Evolution on 'blind faith'. However, Evolution doesn't deserve your loyalty.

            Evolution is not a law, such as the law of gravity. Evolution is a concept many embrace because it offers an option other than GOD. This may not be you. Certainly it is not me. However, it is many who have no idea what undergirds the agenda behind Evolution.

            I appreciate and accept your willingness to believe something that "makes sense to (you).". I also appreciate your honesty.

            Your comments have been and are astute, fair and welcome.

            Thank you.
            GOD BLESS you.
            smile

            1. cascoly profile image60
              cascolyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              this is patently faslse and has been noted many times in these forums and discussions  - to CONTINUE to throw this out is itsekllf dishonest -

              first, evolution and a belief in god are 2 completlly separate concepts - many scientists [almost all of whom accept evolution] also claim a belief in god.  there's really no problem - except for bible fundamentalists

              second the 'evolution is just a theory' argument is so tired, that it's not even worth addressing again -- if you really believe this is the case, do some research before you post such outdated claims

        3. Disappearinghead profile image90
          Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          EVT Check out this video on YouTube:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGLWlCRl … ata_player

          I refer to an earlier post of mine which you didn't respond to: where is the evidence for creationism?

        4. cascoly profile image60
          cascolyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          to continue to assert falsehoods in the face of overwhelming evidence is willful ignorance - you have been told time after time that evolution is NOT a theory of the origin of life; that NOTHING can be proven beyond any doubtr; that the theoiry of evolution is the how, while the LAW of evolution is a fact proven by i nnumerable experimkents

          all you have in return is "god did it"

          we have NO NEED to prove you wrong - the evidence is there. if you want to wallow in ignorance, that's your choice  - it's up to those who challenge science to show EVIDENCE agaisnt evolution.  so far the most anyone  has said is "i dont believe it 'cause i believe in god".  that's intellectuallyh empty

    6. 0
      Sophia Angeliqueposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I have two  questions.

      a) Why is it so important for you (and others) to constantly challenge the findings of evolution? If you want to believe in creationism, you're welcome.

      b) I'm sure you're familiar with the idiom, "one sparrow does not a summer make.' In other words, the fact that a handful of atheists recanted their position does not in anyway make up for the millions (including pastors) who are moving away from religion. It's currently moving towards 20%

      http://theweek.com/article/index/226625 … in-america

      1. EmVeeT profile image80
        EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hello Sophia Angelique....

        Welcome to the discussion.

        You ask a question. Can I answer? I don't know. Your rating on HubPages is almost perfect. Mine is not. (Way to go, Girl ~ on that account!! smile) Does that reflect on our comparative intelligence? I cannot tell. However, the wrong response from me, may make it so.

        Let me try though... within the limited capacity of my articulation... I will try.

        You ask: a) Why is it so important for you (and others) to constantly challenge the findings of evolution? If you want to believe in creationism, you're welcome.

        My answer: Almost every Thread on HubPages related to a subject linking itself to Creationism, and/or especially to Belief in GOD,  has been met with disparaging, diminishing, sometimes rude, and often defeating remarks and comments. My goal is not to challenge the findings of evolution, if there are any actual findings. My goal is to cause individuals to consider  that whether or not Evolution is, GOD IS.


        You then said, "b) I'm sure you're familiar with the idiom, "one sparrow does not a summer make.' In other words, the fact that a handful of atheists recanted their position does not in anyway make up for the millions (including pastors) who are moving away from religion. It's currently moving towards 20%"

        I don't care if the entire world embraces the theory of Evolution. That embracing would not be enough for me to believe such a theory, UNLESS FACTUAL EVIDENCE to prove NOTHING CAN TURN INTO A LIVE ORGANISM, even if it is ONE-CELLED, existed.

        You see, it is my firm belief that GOD ALONE CREATES LIFE, in whatever manifestation, application, formula and platform HE DESIRES. Without HIM there is no life. Therefore, if LIFE CAN BE MANUFACTURED FROM NOTHING, ABSOLUTE, COMPLETE, EMPTY NOTHING, then to me that will prove GOD IS IN THE EQUATION.

        No number of statistics, no mention of authoritative figures, no stunning, dazzling, or apparent firework display of fascinating hypotheses' will cause me to change my mind. All I'm asking for is immutable evidence.

        GOD has given me such, in relation to my faith in HIM. I'm not asking for anymore from those who mock HIM, or HIS Participation in CREATION. I am only asking for the same.

        Thank you though, for your statistics. They may be accepted by many others as evidence to trust. Like a placebo in an experiment... many will believe such evidence enough.

        GOD BLESS you.
        smile

    7. Titen-Sxull profile image93
      Titen-Sxullposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Firstly, I was an atheist BEFORE I accepted evolution. This is because I was raised to distrust evolutionary science and be biased against it. Even after I stopped being a Christian and began leaning more and more toward atheism I was still very much skeptical of evolution, until I looked at the actual evidence.

      Second, about your Harvard Professor. Isaac Newton, possibly the greatest scientist in history, believed in Alchemy. Intelligent minds are not immune to superstition, getting things wrong, or even believing ridiculous nonsense like creationism.

      The fact is that evolution can and does occur, the evidence is there in our genes, in our behavior, in the fossil record, in your CHILDREN (if you have any).

      Anyone's conversion from evolutionary biology to special creation is no more evidence of creation's validity (or evolution's faults) than my own conversion from Old Earth creationist Bible believing Christian to being an atheist, skeptic, and someone who accept's evolution is evidence of the validity of those things (also you're making an argument from authority). A personal belief, a deconversion or a conversion, is not evidence.

      There isn't a scientist in the world who would claim that we have unraveled every mystery surrounding the broad theory of evolution, but we have long ago established the biological fact of evolution.

    8. parrster profile image86
      parrsterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      In truth, proponents of evolution know that it cannot withstand open criticism. Furthermore, they know that evolution cannot be tested nor is it any more scientific than intelligent design; in fact, it is less so. Therefore, in order for them to keep it ensconced in textbooks, they must suppress criticism of it and not allow its varied and numerous flaws to be considered critically. The situation that has arisen due to this irrational adherence to evolution is nothing short of “abnormal and undesirable in science.”

      W.R. Thompson, in his introduction to the 1956 edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species, stated it perfectly when he said:

      It is...right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable. This situation where scientific men rally to the defense of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by suppression of criticism and elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science (p. xxii).

      Ref: http://www.apologeticspress.org/APConte … rticle=700

      1. A Troubled Man profile image59
        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Funny how believers will start off a response with "In truth" when every single statement they make is patently false.

      2. cascoly profile image60
        cascolyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        this is dishonest - first quoting out of context [using a creationist website rather than the actual original source], then you're extrapolating from a 60 year old quote to claim something for which you have no evidence -- where is there such evidence of suppression?   all the evidence is on the other side -- mostly of texas textbook committees refusing to let evolution even be discussed in american science text books

        it is true that most scientists 50 years ago, and many still today, were/are disparaging of creationist crtics  -- a big reason for this is that they understood that any educated person could not possibly fail to see the reality of evolution.  they underestimated the willful  ignorance of the american public, especially when fueled by fundamentalist rantings, so they didnt see the need to react more positively.

        however, what has any of this to do with the subject of this thread?   none of these creationist out of context quotes address the fact that evolution is true.  at the same time, none of the creatioinist proponents here have offered ANY evidence for their argument that creationism is scientific.  in politics, you can win with a negative campaign that proposes no ideas of its own, but that's not how science works.

        1. EmVeeT profile image80
          EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Cascoly,

          Honestly?

          You are repeatedly calling other posts dishonest. The plain fact is your posts are the most dishonest ones presented here. I'm not certain whom it is you hope to reach with your facetious comments. Do you consider those who read what you write so ignorant as to believe you have anything honest to share?

          You have not produced any information of substance; however, you continuously make statements against anyone who has something to say with which you disagree. You attack quotes, yet you cannot prove your position.

          I consider your posts an exemplary model of the cyclical tactics often used by politicians. You say nothing, but you say it loudly. Do you think that if you attack fiercely or aggressively enough someone will believe what you are spouting?

          Evolution is NOT TRUE. First of all, it does not even meet the requirements of a REAL SCIENCE, since Science, BY DEFINITION IS: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

          You will notice this definition says, "KNOWLEDGE of the PHYSICAL AND (not or) MATERIAL WORLD GAINED through OBSERVATION, AND experimentation. Considering Evolution was NOT OBSERVED BY ANY HUMAN BEING, Evolution DOES NOT QUALIFY as AN ACTUAL SCIENCE.

          The closest definition in description relating to what Evolution actually is: "a religion".

          Apart from that, Cascoly, there was an analogy held to by Aldous Huxley. Do you remember him? A proponent of Evolution, he made a remark about a monkey being able to type out the Complete Works of William Shakespeare given enough time. However, THE SCIENCE OF MATHEMATICS refutes such a possibility. What's more, the theory of Evolution evolving from a one-celled live, organism IF THAT WERE EVEN PLAUSIBLE, into a complex, fully developed human cell, according to THE SCIENCE of MATHEMATICS, sits at a statistic with an exponential value of 1 to the power of 1000., which is SO REMOTE THAT EVEN THE ODDS OF A MONKEY EVENTUALLY (over millions or billions of years) TYPING OUT just ONE  SHAKESPEAREAN PLAY ARE MORE REALISTIC.

          LOL... fat chance...

          Just saying...

          GOD BLESS you.

          1. cascoly profile image60
            cascolyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            congratulations on your appointment as final arbiter of truth and definitions!  so by your definition,  geology isnt a science either? or do you think the earth is only 4K years old???




            once more you make a statement without a shred of evidence -- as they say in a real mathematics class -- SHOW YOUR WORK!   where did you get those numbers or did you just copy them from another creationist website without proper citation? 

            this creationist malarkey has been refuted many times and the info is avaialble for anyone who's interested..   it's yet another example of creationist pseudo-science  -  taking science they dont understand themselves and quoting it out of context to try to make a point. as i've said before, ignorance in itself is not a problem - we all come into the world  absolutely ignorant.  it's how we choose to live our mental lives afterwards that matters.  so i'll stand by my previous conclusions - it's intellectually dishonest and willfully ignorant to continue to spew this gibberish when the FACTS are so easily obtained

            1. EmVeeT profile image80
              EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              There are examples of the Mathematical Equations, including factors associated with the numbers a person would be looking at (and comments made as a result of what is posted) for such a SCIENTIFIC FACT to be proven at this link:

              http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/640506/posts

              I didn't do the math myself. Sorry. I thought you might call such a (hit and miss) effort... "yet another example of creationist pseudo-science  -  taking science they dont understand themselves and quoting it out of context to try to make a point."

              Oh, but you have, "said before, ignorance in itself is not a problem..."

              GOD BLESS you, Cascoly.
              smile

              1. A Troubled Man profile image59
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, here is one comment from that website that puts it all into perspective...

              2. cascoly profile image60
                cascolyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                thanks for the link - did you bother to read the replies that demonstrated why this tired old argument [the post itself is from 2002] has been demolished  time after time???  it's yet another mis-use of the laws of thermodynamics by religious fundamentalists.   it also gives an idea why real scientists might become frustrated with trying to explain over and over to people who refuse to listen.  doing real science is much more fun and useful than banging your head against a wall of ignorance

                there's a VERY SIMPLE reason why such arguments about huge numbers aren't needed in order to calculate the odds of evolution occurring, laid out by one of my professors 50 years ago in 'Energey Flow in Biology'

                1. EmVeeT profile image80
                  EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Cascoly,

                  Are you stating the value of the "law of Thermodynamics' to  me now? Are you using the concept of 'the law of thermodynamics' to tell me that what I've offered as proof using SCIENTIFIC FACT can be disputed by another SCIENTIFIC FACT?

                  See, in an earlier post from you, when I explained how THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS COMPLETELY SHUTS DOWN EVERY EFFORT OF the Evolutionary THEORY, you didn't much ascribe to that law...

                  Am I seeing the evidence of an individual who will grab at every greased pot bottom in order to save himself from drowning?

                  Cascoly... I've been to your Hub Pages, and you are an amazing Photographer. I didn't have time to read your posts, but it is obvious to me that you have travelled the world and have seen so very much. I would not be surprised if, in your travels, you also indulged in various practices that gave rise to such engagements that entertain doctrines of demons, if not the very demons themselves.

                  If, in the off chance, this may be your truth, then I offer you the concept of considering your views are eschewed. You are obviously a very intelligent individual. I will not scoff at your brain's worth, as you do mine, just because we do not agree. However, I ask you to be fair, not necessarily honest... and that, not to me, but to yourself.

                  Cascoly, you owe it to yourself to stop believing lies. You owe it to yourself to stop fighting the idea of GOD as CREATOR. HE MADE you. HE LOVES you. HE WILL HURT on the day of judgement when, if you continue as you do, you are cast into the place that was created for the devil and his evil horde. The Lake of Fire is a real place. This location was not meant for humans. Unfortunately, there are a great many humans there already. Do yourself a favor. Not for me. I know WHOM it is I believe, but for you. Your ETERNAL DESTINY, in the world that never ends... that is INFINITE... rests on your position on this earth.

                  GOD BLESS you, Sir. MAY HE BLESS you GREATLY, PROFOUNDLY, WONDROUSLY, through YESHUA, THE MESSIAH, HIS SONG of Deliverance, THE KING of Kings. Amen.

                  P. S.

                  It is very obvious from our interactions that you and me will never ever, in this lifetime agree.... Let's call it even, shall we then... you and I?

                  I leave the ball in your court. If you respond again, I probably will as well...

                  GOD BLESS you.
                  smile

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image59
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Those old tired arguments have long been refuted showing well beyond a shadow of a doubt those arguments are based entirely on the lack of understanding of thermodynamics.



                    Notice that the believer will first attempt to dishonestly argue that thermodynamics does not allow evolution to occur, in other words, using science as their support. then an instant later begin regurgitating faith based fantasies of devils and lakes of fire, stating emphatically that these things are actually real, even though those things would violate scientific laws themselves.

                  2. cascoly profile image60
                    cascolyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    ROFLMAO -- just because you SAID it, didnt tmake it TRUE.  you were wrong then, and refused to learn anything when your errors were corrected. Can you even state the actual 2nd law?  or did you just copy the false argument you found on a creationist website? 



                    you're coming VERY  close to getting flagged for abuse -- but since i dont believe in any gods, i'm also not afraid of any devils, so calling me a devil worshipper is just silly.    yes, i've attended a variety of religious rituals and ceremonies around the world;  but then, the catholic church  is just one of many "that indulged in various practices that gave rise to such engagements that entertain doctrines of demons"



                    one more time - i have never questioned your intelligence -- i have called you out for being willfully ignorant -- ie, you demonstrate it every time you leave a post like this one where you presume that you are the only one with access to the truth even when you dont know what you're talking about (specifically 2nd law of thermodynamics) 

                    those who actually know the laws, may appreciate this updated version, easier to remember:

                    1. you can't win
                    2. you can't break even
                    3. you can't get out of the game




                    "bring it on!"  (quoting a president who also doesnt believe in evolution)

          2. A Troubled Man profile image59
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            No, your posts have swept that award in most categories.



            Notice that the believer bases their false conclusions on a complete lack of knowledge. Yes, evolution has been observed by human beings and does indeed qualify as science, despite your faith based assertions.



            Again, that is false. The theorem shows a low probability, it does not refute it.



            Making up numbers out of thin air only shows more dishonesty on your part.

            1. EmVeeT profile image80
              EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              TM, this response does not border on the ridiculous... it breaks the boundaries of reason.

              I see now, there is no getting through to you. I don't want to say you are a lost cause, because JESUS doesn't think you so. However, you are beyond this human's comprehension. Sadder still, you're proud of it.

              GOD BLESS you... MAY HE HAVE ALSO HAVE MERCY on you, should you fail to change your heart set before the moment you meet. In YESHUA's Name, I pray. Amen.

              1. A Troubled Man profile image59
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                lol Threats of wrath only show just how desperate believers are when they've been caught red handed time after time attempting to masquerade their faith driven dishonesty as logic and reason, believing we are as gullible and ignorant as them, breaking the boundaries of the ridiculous.

                1. EmVeeT profile image80
                  EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  TM... Come on now... I think, because you are smarter than you show, that you know I am not threatening anyone.... I'm simply stating a fact. This is one fact I cannot prove this side of heaven... however, once this life is all said and done, if you are not sharing an Eternal Peace alongside me, for the breath of time that I remember you, I will be saddened.

                  GOD BLESS you, Troubled Man. MAY HE TAKE all your troubles and sweep them away, on the you meet.

                  smile

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image59
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    There are few if any facts in your posts. Regurgitating the wrath of God is not a fact.



                    Those religious fantasies have no bearing on me whatsoever. Your feigned sadness only shows a false superiority.



                    lol

        2. parrster profile image86
          parrsterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The atheist paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould, once said:

          ‘Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective “scientific method”, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.’

          Evolution is not a fact. Not even scientific, not in the 'scientific method' sense. It is not observable, non-testable & unverifiable. It is speculation that has been elevated by "self serving mythology" to a status it has no right to claim.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image59
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Truly amazing how believers dishonestly attack scientists when most everything they have and use today was the result of a scientist working diligently to create it, especially when they make it evident they have no understanding of science or how it works.

          2. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Hmmm.  Not a fact, and not observable.  Yet man has artificially evolved the banana tree to the point it cannot reproduce with man's help and most of its livestock to where they would hardly recognizable to people from 500 years ago.

            Yet we watch as the flue virus evolves each and every year into something it wasn't.

            Perhaps you can't see evolution happening (closed eyes and minds have that effect), but most people can.

            1. EmVeeT profile image80
              EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Hi Wilderness...

              Nice of you to join the conversation. Your comments are appreciated.

              You said, "man has artificially evolved the banana tree to the point it cannot reproduce with man's help.."

              Are you saying this is a good thing.

              Do you realize that seeds have been modified to the degree where a person/farmer cannot use the seedlings produced from new fruit,/harvest because all that will develop is the branches or stalk... no fruit...? Think about it. This is insidious. For hundreds and thousands of years, people have sustained themselves using the seedlings produced from the fruit of their present year harvest. With the help of mankind you're now saying a banana tree cannot reproduce itself without the help of man and that is GOOD?????

              SORRY. I CANNOT AGREE. BANANA'S HAVE BEEN REPRODUCING THEMSELVES WITHOUT THE HELP OF MAN FOR CENTURIES. WHY DID MAN GET INVOVLED? Could it be to control the production... as many other aspects of civilization are being controlled or nearing that place?

              Again, think about it... eventually, as those who are doing the genetic modifying complete the process nothing will grow unless the seed comes from them... but you can only produce a harvest the first year. Second year, all you will get is the stalk... branch... greenery. Now, instead of being able to grow vegetables without going to buy new seeds, you'll be able to grow the shrubbery. Oh... well... that is great. We can use this portion of the plant in our flower garden. GREAT MODIFICATION. AWESOME.

              How is this helpful?

              Then you say, "and most of its livestock to where they would hardly recognizable to people from 500 years ago."

              Again, to your mind: is this a good thing?

              Cows are being pumped up with so many drugs they are producing eight to ten times more milk than is normal. As a result they often become infected... then they are given antibiotics, so that traces of antibiotics carry over into the bloodstream of those who drink the milk... which in turn causes people to become immune to antibiotics, which in turn allows for mutation of the virus, which is actually a genetic loss, not improvement. Bacteria becomes resistant to drugs because they lost information... The antibiotic cannot lock onto the ribosome of the bacteria because that ribosome is lost in mutation... resistant only to the particular drug that caused the mutation.

              Wilderness... let me ask you: do you believe you/humans evolved from a rock?

              Do you know that Darwin wasn't even the first person to have the ideas that he took to be his own?

              Do you believe that 20 billion years ago... or so... (lots of evidence for this) something exploded and turned nothing into something? Truly?

              Do you understand that the mathematics necessary to create ONE HUMAN CELL... not an entire person, but ONE FULLY DEVELOPED HUMAN CELL, would take cazillions of years to evolve... and that... only if nothing were not the base structure of formation? That first organism would have to be ALIVE. But how could it be without something live sparking (to use a good word suggested to me) life?

              Sorry... I can't agree with your points. Thanks though for the input.

              GOD BLESS you.
              smile

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                And again, hmmm.

                Good?  I never mentioned good at all.  I agree with you that most of man's machinations with the evolution of plants and animals will in the long run turn out to be a mistake, but nevertheless they happened.  Man evolved those things by use of limited breeding (and, to be sure, at least some genetic manipulation).  That's evolution and that was my point.  Evolution happens, can be seen, and can be tested although you claimed the opposite.

                As far as coming from a rock, where did that come from?  It isn't a part of the evolutionary theory and is a totally separate field of study.  I didn't mention abiogenesis - I only addressed the idea that the concept of evolution isn't a fact. 

                The mathematics of a single human cell - do you have a statistical analysis?  You claim cazillions of years to evolve - where can I see that analysis?  I have seen people try to prove the point that way, but it inevitably begins with false hypotheses and goes downhill from there, ending with something like what you said - "I can't show it but it takes an eternity".

                1. EmVeeT profile image80
                  EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Hey...

                  I appreciate your sentiments. So we agree that modifications by man are not necessarily good. Maybe some are. Maybe some intentions are even good. But the 'genetic manipulations' can actually be destructive.

                  Now you said, "As far as coming from a rock, where did that come from?  It isn't a part of the evolutionary theory...".

                  Actually this is part of the theory. Most people who claim to believe in Evolution don't even realize it. I'm sorry I cannot do the homework for you, but you should look into it.

                  You ask: "where can I see that analysis?"... I placed a link in one of my posts. However, the mathematics was scoffed at (by a few particular people)... just like every other thing I post here... but if you like you can find that post. Or I can try to find that post for you.

                  Again, thanks for your input. I can see you're not trying to break down my points... you are actually interested in figuring out if there is a basis of truth to Evolution.

                  But something you said I found really interesting, You mentioned 'genetic modification'  and 'manipulation'. If, "Evolution" were reconfirmed in title as 'MODIFICATION of the Species', or 'MANIPULATION of The Species', then I would agree with it. Because that is all genetic experimentation is... man-playing- with genes.

                  Great point. Thanks.

                  GOD BLESS you
                  smile

                  1. EmVeeT profile image80
                    EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Wilderness...

                    How about leaving the math out and considering these statements:

                    Stephen Hawking:

                    "...our present computers are less complex than the brain of a an earthworm, a species not noted for their intellectual powers..." (Spoken at a White House Millennium Council ~year 2000)

                    Nobel Prize Winner Linus Pauling:

                    "...a single-cell, the smallest LIVING unit is more complicated than New York City."  (emphasis mine).

                    Or... you can check out the math link.

                    GOD BLESS you.
                    smile

                  2. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You are mistaken about abiogensis being a part of the theory of evolution.  Charles Darwin, the father of the theory, repeatedly stated that the question of the origin of life was NOT a part of his theories; he never addressed the question.  This is a common misrepresentation of those not understanding evolution - we can't prove how life started, so include it in the ideas and claims of evolution (the Origin of species) and those ideas are therefore wrong.  It doesn't work.  That a species can and does evolve into a different species has nothing to do with the ultimate origin of life.

                    Yes, man commonly manipulates species - simple dog breeding is one example.  The fact that man is limiting breeding possibilities rather than nature doing it without man's intervention has nothing to do with the accepted fact that it works. 

                    Man also interferes in the genetic code.  It can be done with X-rays, with chemicals or with physical shifting of genes.  The same thing nature does.  Again, it works whether done by man or nature and we know that to be true.  Evolution of living things is a fact and we see it all around us, we cause it sometimes, and we can test whether it is possible or not.

                  3. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Found your link.  I didn't check the math, but assume it is correct.

                    Unfortunately, the very first premiss (unstated) is incorrect.  Monkeys typing randomly on a keyboard does not represent evolution at all.  Let me explain:

                    There is one chance in 26 that the first character is right, and that one chance will happen fairly soon.  But the analyst assumes that all the characters will be typed totally randomly, one after the other, and that is where the comparison fails.  Evolution operates on the concept that a positive change, once made, will be kept - that subsequent changes will build on that first change.  The typing monkeys don't do that - the assumption is that the entire sentence must be typed all in one sequence and all randomly.

                    This changes the math enormously, and that huge string of 9's becomes a much, much shorter string.  Still long, but nowhere as long as the analyst proposes.

                    In addition, it isn't one monkey, or a thousand monkeys.  It is millions of individuals, all typing at once, to be comparable.  It is also over millions of years (which the author noted correctly as inconsequential, and it is until you begin to think of millions of individuals at the same time).  With the shorter string of 9's, it is suddenly very consequential to consider both the number of monkeys and the time involved.

                    Now add in that you are dealing not with 26 letters as proposed, but only 4 of them; the 4 chemicals of a DNA string.  Things change again with the math, once more shortening that string of 9's.

                    This is why I usually ignore the claim of mathematics proving evolution can't work.  The "mathematician" also needs to be a chemist, a physicist, a cosmologist and understand evolution as well.  Instead I see a well-meaning but misguided soul trying to prove that God never used evolution as a tool to change primitive life to what we see today.

              2. twosheds1 profile image60
                twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                "Do you believe that 20 billion years ago... or so... (lots of evidence for this) something exploded and turned nothing into something? Truly?"

                I don't claim to be an expert, but I would have to say yes, based on the evidence that has been presented to me. Specifically, books by Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss have made the argument that "nothing" is unstable, and therefore a state of nothingness cannot exist, at least for a time frame we could conceive of. It's not that the 'verse was humming merrily along, filled with nothing, then something just popped into existence one day. There was no "before." It's not an easy concept to grasp, I admit, but having read their books, and reading some of the preliminary findings on the Higgs boson, which confirm a lot of their speculation (indeed, much of their speculation was based on earlier data from the Higgs), I have to say that their hypotheses make sense. Were I a theoretical physicist, I'd be testing them right now.

                Regarding cows, it's only fairly recently that farmers have been dosing them with antibiotics, but selective breeding has been going on for centuries (indeed, millenia) to produce cattle that make good steaks and lots of milk. A better example might be the dog. My dachshund is the same species as my co-worker's St. Bernard. Imagine that! And both are descended from a common ancestor of the modern wolf. Dogs, though, have been modified through selective breeding to produce certain traits and temperaments. This stll goes on. Ask any dog breeder or anyone who shows their dog. This also has been going on for millenia, but in this case it was artificial, rather than natural selection.

                The point is, left to their own devices, domestic dogs probably never would have come about. It is only through human intervention that we have dogs today.

                1. EmVeeT profile image80
                  EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Hey Twosheds1!

                  Awesome points!

                  You say,

                  selective breeding has been going on for centuries (indeed, millenia) to produce cattle that make good steaks and lots of milk. A better example might be the dog. My dachshund is the same species as my co-worker's St. Bernard. Imagine that! And both are descended from a common ancestor of the modern wolf. Dogs, though, have been modified through selective breeding to produce certain traits and temperaments. This stll goes on. Ask any dog breeder or anyone who shows their dog. This also has been going on for millenia, but in this case it was artificial, rather than natural selection.

                  The point is, left to their own devices, domestic dogs probably never would have come about. It is only through human intervention that we have dogs today.

                  But your dog and your co-worker's dog were not bred into something that is a 'non-dog'?

                  And left to their own devices, how long do you think, since the dog species has existed until the time that the combination you and your co-worker share, would have come into existence without man's help?

                  You don't have to provide numbers. I know what I am asking is impossible to calculate. My point: that is just ONE SPECIES. Yet, there is no proof that even one cell has come full circle the way you are postulating.

                  I haven not read the books by Hawkings and Krauss that you've read. Nor do I doubt the interesting amalgamation of scientific theory presented therein, but seriously... in the end it is all still only theory.

                  And I don't believe theories that have no true foundation.

                  See, if I were I Scientist right now, I would lay onto this board content that might present a theory none could refute, for their lack of instruction. But that would not make my theory FACT. I could make it sound amazing, intellectual, completely thought out and real, but in the end if there were enough missing factors the entire premise could be, most likely would be FALSE.

                  That is my point.

                  Your comments are valid, valuable, interesting and I appreciate them. However, I still fail to see what about the "20 billion years ago or so..." gives credence to anything?

                  My original comment was meant to show that just as I believe in Creationism, Evolutionists believe what they believe, not based on scientific fact, but in FAITH... just as in 'a religion'. The difference between me and them is, I know I am believing by faith. They refuse to admit theirs is a faith-based religion.

                  Again, Twosheds1, your comments are much appreciated. i enjoyed reading this.

                  GOD BLESS you.
                  smile

                  1. twosheds1 profile image60
                    twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    But your dog and your co-worker's dog were not bred into something that is a 'non-dog'?

                    No, wolves were bred into something that became a "non-wolf."

                    And left to their own devices, how long do you think, since the dog species has existed until the time that the combination you and your co-worker share, would have come into existence without man's help?
                    If we assume people had not domesticated wolves (which is the prevailing theory on the dog's origin) there would be no dog, at least as we know it. Presumably, the proto-wolf that was domesticated would have evolved into something else.

                    See, if I were I Scientist right now, I would lay onto this board content that might present a theory none could refute, for their lack of instruction. But that would not make my theory FACT.
                    That would be more of a hypothesis. That's a common mistake people make. Hypotheses are basically educated guess on how a process works and are subject to empirical testing. Scientific theories are explanations of natural processes that have undergone empirical testing. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.

                    Evolutionists believe what they believe, not based on scientific fact, but in FAITH... I've made the argument before that there really is no scientific "fact," only evidence. We accept the evidence or we don't. The evidence may be incomplete (such as for string theory), so it may take a little more "faith" to accept, but no one is asking you to accept strig theory - or evolutionary theory - without the evidence. Obviously, in Biology 101 they may take it as a given that you accept the basics of evolution, but that's more of an expedient in order to keep the class moving, rather than having you accept something without evidence.

                    We seem to be going back and forth on this a lot, and getting no where, so I think I'm going to let this drop. Thanks for your attention.

              3. cascoly profile image60
                cascolyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                see we can agree -even though the conclusion is different - the problem here is not that GM foods are being made, but that Monsanto and other corporations are controlling the process and charging ridiculous prices.  GM foods are going to be necessary to feed an ever growing population, but they should not be monopolized.



                it's helpful when the resulting plant produces more than it would otherwise, or incorporates important vitamins in rice, etc.  did you know that most of the US corn and soybean crops have been GM for some years now? 





                this is scientific gibberish:
                  * people don't become 'immune' to antibiotics - the attacking organisms become resistant
                  * that does NOT lead to the virus mutating
                  * for neither virus nor bacteria is this a loss - rather it's a gain in function
                  * antibiotics do not work by attaching to ribosomes or they would also kill the infected host
                  * if a bacteria 'lost' it's ribosomes it would die

                you're missing a very basic fact here, that evolution does not make anything do anything -- instead, natural selection allows the preferential survival of organisms that HAVE ALREADY mutated, when they can do better in the new environment.  unlike invoking a creator, the process is totally random,  ruled only by the laws of science






                who claimed anyone evolved from a rock??  who ever claimed that he was the first?  Stephen Jay Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory is a 1400 page book devoted to this topic.   





                except for the inconvenienrt fact that life DID evolve!  and there is no reason that the first organic molecules had to be alive - this is the concept of the primordial soup - but also, as others have told you repeatedly, this theory on the origin of life has nothing to do with evolutution.

            2. parrster profile image86
              parrsterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              What you are describing is not evolution, it is adaptation within kinds. As long as two creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures are the same kind. Kinds would have originally been distinct biological species, i.e. a population of organisms that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring, but that cannot so breed with a different biological species. Note that the kind is larger than one of today’s ‘species’. Because each of the original kinds was created with a vast amount of information, there was enough variety in the information in the original creatures so their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.(http://creation.com/speciation-questions-and-answers).
              We are discussing the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE), which was defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’
              It is erroneous, then, to say that a human-tampered banana is proof, that human-tampered farm animals are proof, that a virus adapting to a virus is proof of GTE.
              Show me, using the scientific method, evidence of a banana becoming something other than its kind, or a cow becoming something other than its kind, and you can claim evolution to be scientific.
              http://s3.hubimg.com/u/7049194_f520.jpg

              1. cascoly profile image60
                cascolyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                no one claimed a banana is becoming 'something else' - so your challenge is as menaingless as the OP

                a much better description of evolution is

                   * mutation causes changes in genetic data
                   * changing environments apply different stresses
                   * natural selection results in reproduction of forms best adapted to new conditions

                your use of a creationist webswite rather than a scientific one exposes this, yet another tired old creationist lie about 'kinds' disproving evolution.  'kind' is a biblical term with no scientific meaning.  there is plenty of evidence for evolution, absolutely NONE for creation and many links have already been provided here  - no need to waste our time digging them up again if you havent bothered to read this thread

                1. EmVeeT profile image80
                  EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Cascoly,

                  There is plenty of proof for Creationism.

                  The theory of evolution... resolving into a study of "changing environments or natural selection that causes the "reproduction of forms" other than the original without the capacity to reproduce once manipulated by human beings is a better definition.

                  Thing is, we will not agree on this. Your website proofs bore me just as much as mine do you. Therefore, (and considering I have a big Musical Event coming up this weekend) let's leave off, you and I... shall we?

                  My child is home from the hospital now; and whereas I was visiting several times a day before, more attention is necessary at home. Besides, I've been preparing for this weekend for months; and need to devote more time to it until after it's over now.

                  Thanks for your interaction.

                  GOD BLESS you.

                  (I'm sorry... I'm certain this appears a cop out... I wouldn't normally defer, but I have a lot of work in front of me... Big Event this week. Competition next week... as well as another Event...).

                  GOD BLESS each of you... if anyone decides to continue the conversation... I will notice from my emails... I will also be very tempted to respond...... but I will probably have to force myself to stay away... sad ...)

                  *This is directed to those of you who have been kind enough to interact/participate in this discussion... whether we have agreed or not.)

                  MAY GOD'S RICHEST BLESSINGS REST upon you.
                  smile

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image59
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    But, there's no evidence for Creationism.



                    So, you wish to redefine terms to suit your dishonest agenda?



                    No, your position is a strong belief in God causing you to dishonestly dismiss facts out of hand.

              2. A Troubled Man profile image59
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                And yet, another believer wishing to redefine terms in order to support a religious agenda.



                LOL! How is possible that believers who don't comprehend how science works, let alone evolution, make such ridiculous examples and call it scientific?

                Could it be because their beliefs are based on magic that they must assume everything works like magic?

                1. EmVeeT profile image80
                  EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Dearest Troubled Man,

                  Do you not grow weary of baiting people with your false statements and undermining interpretations? Don't you ever feel shame for belittling others regarding their ability to understand, discuss or converse using the written word?

                  When I read your slanted attempts at communication, I envision a very strong, influential writer behind your scoffing remarks. In my heart I am so certain that you could put your writing talents to good use.

                  Yes. I believe in GOD. I have always said so, and I would be content if my life would expire one day before ever I would/could/were to/should be persuaded to lose that love and belief. HE IS NOT ONLY my very BEST FRIEND, HE IS my COMFORT, my STRENGTH and my JOY.

                  I've been asked not to veer off topic by those who hold to the discussion with sincerity; and I understand that desire not to have to come to a Forum and read stuff in defense of a belief someone does not hold; however, should I not be allowed to respond to the empty verbiage you direct at me, over and over and over and over again?

                  You can slight my intelligence if you like. You can take my understanding of science and diminish that which I cannot defend with greater proofs, but do not call my faith 'magic'. My faith is everything but magic. My BELIEF that GOD IS CREATOR, is HONEST.  My viewpoint relating to this subject has every bit as much value and substantiated concern as that of any other individual who has visited here.... including you.

                  The only difference is: you bend in ways that are unnatural in order to mock and destroy the credibility of those who do not think as you think.

                  Troubled Man, at some point I will completely stop bothering to respond to you, I guess, because I know that my efforts are futile. Still, there is a part of me that hopes you will set aside your caustic remarks and make some real points...

                  You said, "And yet, another believer wishing to redefine terms in order to support a religious agenda..

                  All the while, your remarks are posted for this specific reason. You try to distract those who may be thinking about what others discuss, because you have an "agenda" of your own.

                  You think there are some individuals here that are silly enough to consider your unkind, or weak remarks truth.

                  Troubled Man ... I won't give up on you. I continue to pray that GOD WILL open the eyes of your understanding, and give you a chance to see what you fail to see while you may...

                  ... please don't call my FAITH IN GOD magic. My "beliefs are (not) based on magic...". My beliefs are based on an ALMIGHTY, MERCIFUL and LOVING GOD.

                  GOD BLESS you.

                  1. parrster profile image86
                    parrsterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Well said!

                  2. A Troubled Man profile image59
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    The moment you actually write an honest word here, I will acknowledge it.



                    Yes, I know. It is the only reason you believe what you believe and perhaps is the reason for your dishonest posts here.



                    Feel free, but try to be honest for a change.



                    Your belief might be honest, but what you're writing about science and evolution are not.

                    Yes, your faith is based on magic and your posts on the subject matter offer no value whatsoever.



                    You've destroyed your own credibility here.



                    LOL! Your efforts here are as futile as they are dishonest.



                    No, they point your dishonesty.



                    Perhaps, you haven't noticed others are not agreeing with you here regarding evolution and science? Did you miss that or are just ignoring it?



                    Pray to feed the starving, instead.



                    lol

  2. Jerami profile image79
    Jeramiposted 4 years ago

    Why can't everybody just get along?  LOL
    simple compromises in theorys are necessary.
    God said let it be!
       "BANG"    .......    here it is ....   and due to selective breeding, change in enviroment and dietary consumption,  a species does tend to evolve over a very long period of time.

        And who is to say that whoever/whatever  caused the big band can't restir the pot from time to time.

    1. EmVeeT profile image80
      EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Ha.... LOL... cute.

      GOD Bless you.

      smile

  3. 0
    Emile Rposted 4 years ago

    I'm not a Harvard professor, but I see a plethora of questions that remain unanswered which keep me from thinking they are 100% on the right track on explaining the origin of life on earth. Or the origin of the universe, for that matter. But, I'll take people saying there is no God, and attempting to solve the riddles over preachers telling us we shouldn't question any day of the week.

    It can be funny, though. I read an article the other day explaining why humans have 47 chromosomes. It claimed we started with 48 and then humanity suffered a setback and almost went extinct. Apparently, the population dwindled and we are the result of one man with an odd number of chromosomes being lucky enough to mate with a woman with the same odd number. They populated the earth.

    We are the descendants of one man and one woman. According to this scientific finding. It isn't rocket science to see what it implies, if you didn't make the first assumption. They didn't touch on that possibility in the article.

    1. EmVeeT profile image80
      EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hi EmileR!

      I would like very much to check out the article. I'm still researching. I wouldn't mind (if you still have this information...) reading it through.

      Thanks so much,
      GOD Bless you.

      smile

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I'm on a mobile phone. I can't post the link, but it was an article on Slate called Blogging the Human Genome.  And I misspoke. We have 46 chromosomes, they figured the two ancestors had 47.

        1. EmVeeT profile image80
          EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You said, "I'm on a mobile phone."

          No problem. I can try to look for it.  I'm sure it would be interesting.

          You said, "I'm not a Harvard professor, but I see a plethora of questions that remain unanswered which keep me from thinking they are 100% on the right track on explaining the origin of life on earth."

          How right you are. Not many of us here can boast about being a Harvard professor. Beyond that, the hundred million questions that remain unanswered, and may ALWAYS  remain unanswered prove that whatever we believe is poised on a basis of FAITH.

          That is, in part, my point. While there may be scientists and Ph. D's on both sides of the coin that declare reasons for believing or disbelieving either of these platforms, many are placing their declarations on the a pivot point that says, 'as far as I'm concerned I will believe this even though there is NO PROOF, despite proof that neutralizes the theory completely'.. and each individual says so in FAITH and/or by choice...

          Furthermore, those who say they believe in nothing are actually lying to themselves. Even if they say they believe 'nothing' or 'in nothing' that is still a premise of faith. To make 'nothing' the platform of certainty, a person needs to make 'nothing' a personal philosophy.  Such a philosophy is based on a decision.

          Using as an example what you also said here for instance:

          "I'll take people saying there is no God, and attempting to solve the riddles over preachers telling us we shouldn't question any day of the week.

          I will attempt to expand on what you have said hoping to emphasize the intention of your words here: (If I am mistaken please feel free to correct me.)

          I'll take (CHOOSE) people saying (to believe those who say) there is no God, and attempting to solve the riddles over (rather than) preachers telling us we shouldn't question..."

          I agree with you.

          The Bible tells us we SHOULD QUESTION and we owe it to our eternal destiny to try to resolve the questions we have in our hearts and minds relating to HIM, as truthfully and as well as plausible within our ability to understand the answers, and the opportunity available to us to garnish resources that will help us find as many answers as we need in order to decide wisely.

          With Evolution, those who claim to have 'found a missing link' actually have no proof of this. Most of what is being espoused as fact is actually assumption. Much of what is being experimentally produced is being produced out of elements that are already ALIVE... and MIGHT never have any way of integrating into one another in the natural if not put together in a test tube by a scientist. Moreover, the scientist will have had to utilize matter that is ALREADY ALIVE, since no scientist has ever been able to produce LIFE OUT OF NOTHING.  Therefore, evolutionary scientists must ASSUME the LIVE MATTER somehow came into existence ~something called, 'spontaneous generation'... and then from there, that evolution took place over millennia.

          For reasons that are beyond my articulation skills to explain... and while this platform defies the scientific efforts to prove itself, with odds AGAINST  an occurrence such as spontaneous generation having been calculated by scholars in a formula that measures somewhere at 1 to the 141st exponential power... in other words   'non-existent', this premise is perceived as a viable condition for the remaining processes of evolution to exact themselves.

          Though I cannot paraphrase the molecular structures that would need to generate, transition, mutate etc.,  even IF spontaneous generation was more than a figment of imagination, one thing has been repeatedly proven, is that the same way no actual link has been found to exist between man and his supposed cousin the ape, so no such possibility of creating life from an element lacking life, exists. No matter what type of advanced 'lifeless' elements are utilized, no matter what type of laboratory devices are available, life cannot be generated from nothing.

          These are a few of the 'facts' that I find more than interesting, because they are irrefutable.

          Again, like you, I am no Harvard professor... would that I were... smile

          Thanks, Emile R. Your view, insight  and commentary is appreciated.

          smilesmile

          GOD Bless you.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image59
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Scientists don't talk like that, they don't rest their hypotheses and theories on "proof" but instead evidence. They don't "believe" in evolution, they understand it.



            Believers base their intellect on beliefs rather than understanding, usually because they have not developed the capacity to understand things and have been indoctrinated to believe, hence they can't comprehend how others need not believe in things as they do.



            The Bible also tells you to get your answers from the Bible.



            False statement. "Missing link" is not a term used in science, neither is the term "proof"

            Instead, scientists have "evidence" of "transitional fossils"



            Another false statement. "Spontaneous generation" is an archaic term used to describe  when maggots formed on meat, but was shown invalid several hundred years ago and is not used today.



            Since spontaneous generation is not valid, neither are your numbers.



            Yet, another false statement. Scientists have many fossils that are ancestors to humans and apes.

            https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/hu … nteractive

            1. EmVeeT profile image80
              EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Hi Troubled Man.

              Sorry it took me so long to come back to your comment. I didn't read it all. I was arrested by this statement you made:


              Scientists don't talk like that, they don't rest their hypotheses and theories on "proof" but instead evidence. They don't "believe" in evolution, they understand it.

              My question to you then, is WHAT EXACTLY DO Scientist UNDERSTAND if there is no proof to undergird the theory? Can you supply some 'evidence for me?

              I appreciate your view.

              Thank you and GOD BLESS you.
              smile

              1. A Troubled Man profile image59
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Sorry, are you asking for evidence of evolution?

            2. EmVeeT profile image80
              EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Wow. Troubled Man.

              I tried to keep reading but stopped here:


              Believers base their intellect on beliefs rather than understanding, usually because they have not developed the capacity to understand things and have been indoctrinated to believe, hence they can't comprehend how others need not believe in things as they do.

              These are pretty heavy statements. Some people might consider them accusations.

              Can you provide an example for me?

              I would really like to understand what you have just stated, so I can make an effort to believe it.

              Thank you.
              GOD BLESS you.

              P. S.

              I'm not mocking. I know it might READ that way. But I'm not. I'm trying to make a point, but I can only do so by asking questions as I go.

              (Plus... I might not be back for a while. I have work right now... ). Ciao for now. GOD BLESS you.
              smile

              1. A Troubled Man profile image59
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                There are examples all over this forum in which people believe or disbelieve things but have no understanding of them. Evolution is a perfect example.

  4. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    One Harvard professor "realized" evolutions is wrong, others have "realized" it  is right.  I don't see how that is relevant at all.

    It's a pretty simple theory and the evidence is mostly in the public domain.  I made up my own mind.

    1. EmVeeT profile image80
      EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Sounds interesting. Do you have some names so that I can read their work or check out their findings?

      Thanks for this Psycheskinner.

      smile

      GOD Bless you.

      1. psycheskinner profile image80
        psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago in reply to this
        1. EmVeeT profile image80
          EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks!

          Much appreciated.

          smile

          1. EmVeeT profile image80
            EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Hey there, Psycheskinner....

            You said, "One Harvard professor "realized" evolutions is wrong, others have "realized" it  is right.  I don't see how that is relevant at all. It's a pretty simple theory and the evidence is mostly in the public domain.  I made up my own mind."

            Then you proceed to give me links with lists of Scientists working in Universities, studying within the parameters of their views or attempting to prove/present their thesis/theses. This DOES NOT explain how you "made up (your) own mind." In other words, I don't see how these links are 'relevant at all'.

            I can also copy and paste links for the names of Scientists, Ph. D's and individuals who provide exegesis for their views. My link would prove nothing to you, just as your link proves nothing to me.

            What I asked is "what basis do you have for your belief in 'the Theories of Evolution'?"

            In other words, what evidence persuaded you to put your faith in the theories of Evolution?

            Thanks for the links, but I can visit links anytime ~and I have... that doesn't answer my question ... only you can do that by sharing the 'facts you consider true' (or reasonably so to your mind). Whether these facts are true or plausible is not the question... only what is it that motivates you to trust the theories of Darwin despite the lack of evidence for his platform.

            BLESSINGS to you.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The theory of evolution isn't perfect BUT it is reasonable and based on the best scientific evidence that we have available.  There are a few gaps but one person (regardless of his Dr. status) not knowing the answer to one issue in the science isn't really a deal breaker to me. 

              The biggest problem I have with creationism is the astonishingly large leap from "They can't prove evolution to my satisfaction" to "God must have done it."  It doesn't make a lot of sense to object to evolution based an extremely strenuous examination of obscure and complicated scientific theory that the average person couldn't understand after years of study in favor of a completely irrational and illogical theory of creation that has absolutely no basis in any form of science.

              If you are going to rip apart science with science then apply the same burden of proof to creationism and see which one seems more sound...on a completely rational basis...

              Saying that a theory is wrong because you can't explain how amino acids form proteins while basically accepting that  a giant formless all-powerful being whom no one has ever seen created everything from nothing in 6 days seems a bit... err... silly.

              1. EmVeeT profile image80
                EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Point taken.

                (It was nice of you to be so sweet, by calling 'silly'  ~what you consider to be the illogical acceptance of creationism~ something that equally cannot be proven.)

                The fact is, for most Creationists, the concept of GOD CREATING the Universe, Planet, Man, Mouse etc., is taken by 'faith'. However, Evolutionists want the everyone to believe their 'theory' is a proven fact.

                Evolution is NOT A PROVEN FACT. Those who believe in this theory do so 'in faith'. That is my point.

                Moreover, Atheists, people who often say they believe in 'nothing' use Evolution as one of the major platforms for their faith in no faith. They make a lot of statements intended to portray Creationists as illogical, unintelligent, blind, deaf, dumb and well, shall we say, 'mentally challenged' individuals, who wouldn't know what hit them if it were a forty pound rock.

                That is not acceptable.

                Now, I know... you're going to say Creationists do the same with Atheists or anyone who doesn't believe what they believe. Unfortunately, that may be true. That is why I started this Thread. That is why I asked that no one attack anyone personally.

                To belittle one person for believing something you don't is also unacceptable.

                Whether a person is an Evolutionist or a Creationist... or a believer in nothing at all... not calling themselves an Atheist, because the label alone has the potential to make Atheism a 'religion' by virtue of the numbers, is not what this Thread is directed at determining. Neither is the idea of 'who is right?' or 'who is wrong?'

                What I find interesting is "what basis an individual has for the belief in 'the Theories of Evolution'?

                I appreciate your comment, MelissaBarrett! GOD BLESS you.
                smile

                1. twosheds1 profile image60
                  twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  But nothing is a "proven fact." Is it a "proven fact" that a shooting took place at a movie theater in Aurora, CO, a couple weeks ago? You might think so, but really all you have is some evidence provided by the news media that it actually happened (assuming you weren't there).

                  And that's true of everything. There is no "proof," only evidence. In the Aurora case, you have no reason to doubt the media, and the accounts seem reasonable (not that shooting people is reasonable, but that a shooting occurred), so there is no reason not to believe it. If the media reported that instead of guns, the killer killed people using laser beams from his eyes, you might reasonably doubt the authenticity of that claim (well, hopefully you would). People don't normally shoot lasers out of their eyes, so you would either expect some better evidence that that happpened, or you would dismiss that particular news medium as being ridiculously unreliable... until you heard it reported elsewhere.

                  Relating this to evolution, initially, Darwin's idea seemed a bit outlandish, so he provided what evidence he could, using the tools of the day. As biology (and other sciences) advanced, other findings confirmed Darwin's ideas. In more modern times, DNA evidence has provided even more confirmation. The process by which amino acids become proteins might not be fully understood, but the fact is, it occurs. The task is upon scientists to find out how. They could just say "God did it," and go home, but that would be accepting ignorance.

                  Thank you for your attention.

                  1. EmVeeT profile image80
                    EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You said, But nothing is a "proven fact." Is it a "proven fact" that a shooting took place at a movie theater in Aurora, CO, a couple weeks ago? You might think so, but really all you have is some evidence provided by the news media that it actually happened (assuming you weren't there).

                    Actually, no. I have proof that the Aurora shooting took place.

                    There was one young woman, Jessica Ghwai, who was at a shooting in Toronto Ontario, Canada. Not far from where I live, just before the shooting in Aurora. She escaped death at the Eaton's Center shooting. However, she was one of the fatal victims of the Aurora shooting.

                    Did her attendance at the Colorado shooting substantiate the media coverage of that particular case? Yes.

                    Jessica Ghawi, being a survivor of the Eaton's Center shooting, and having blogged about it... caused the media reports attached to her victimization to be quadrupled just for being at the second tragic shooting, and then magnified by becoming an actual victim of the violence.

                    The heightened media around her death, and the interviews of people who were affected by her death considering her first escape becomes a more direct evidence. The fact that she was an aspiring  News broadcaster, and was known on a more public platform, with public figures acknowledging her tragic loss and making public the effect the tragedy had on them... affirm her death. The reports of a brother who was unable to attend "the hearing" for the shooter, because he was afraid he would try to get his "hands on (the) man" and who was publicly interviewed by CNN also presents tangible evidence for her actual presence at the theatre and her actual demise.

                    The public hearing, where the shooter was charged with the twelve murders substantiate the circumstance. So does Jessica Gwhai becoming the first officially named victim.

                    Also her last words, tweeted to her friend, relating how strange she felt moments before the tragedy took place.... ARE A TESTIMONY to the reality, odd though it may be, of her being in the wrong place at the wrong time TWICE; and the air of foreboding that she rightfully experienced just before she was shot to death is an queer legacy left for her family.

                    (The Tweet can be read here if you are interested: http://twitchy.com/2012/07/20/aurora-vi … her-death/)

                    Your analogy fails you. Sorry.

                    Every analogy where there is SOLID TANGIBLE EVIDENCE WILL FAIL you. You need to think of something where NO TANGIBLE EVIDENCE exists, something that still comes off as FACT. Such as (for example) GRAVITATIONAL PULL. The law of gravity is intangible, However, the fact that human beings are not flying off the surface of the earth provides us SOLID, TANGIBLE (though invisible) EVIDENCE that this law IS FACT.

                    I hope this helps you.

                    GOD BLESS you,

                    smile

  5. AshtonFirefly profile image83
    AshtonFireflyposted 4 years ago

    This is an interesting story.
    While I was in college, we did extensive research on science, what is considered to be a scientific fact, and what theories and "laws" we base our scientific research on.
    I found it astonishing that the very foundation of our most basic understanding of science were all based on ideas and theories of things which we have never seen or proven to exist. This may generate debate on what is "proof" and what is not. But the truth is, we have never seen an atom. We have never seen an electron. We don't know so much...and yet we base all of our scientific discoveries and laws on the basics of physics which in turn is based on very sketchy assumptions.
    What i found astonishing, as well, is that all scientific findings and theories are assessed with certain assumptions in mind. This is necessary for in order to assess anything, you have to make certain assumptions. However, the more I learned about the philosophy of science and exactly how scientists determine what qualifies as evidence, or what qualifies as fact, or what qualifies as theory, I found it to be unnervingly dependent upon personal judgement and unproven theories than upon proven facts; indisputable facts.
    I think it is a mistake to place such dependency on scientific theories and ideas.
    Not to say I don't support them. I definitely do. I just don't think that science should be the final source of information. In my opinion, science is still conducted by human beings. And because it is conducted by human beings, there will always be an element of subjectivity and a certain element of judgement and assumption and parameters which may or may not be consciously known. I respect the scientific community for their objectivity; I simply think that there are more areas to be considered when attempting to determine what is real, what is fact, and what is not.
    I personally have no religious preference. I'm not trying to promote either Creationism or Evolution's explanation of earth's origins. I simply think it would be wise to know exactly what goes on in scientific research, instead of blindly listening to whatever the scientific community says. Learn why they make the judgements they do. How do they determine evidence? What consists of a logical hypothesis? It's all about philosophy, the philosophy of science; because as long as it is humans who are doing the scientific research, some element of human logic and human philosophy is going to have to be applied to find meaning to scientific findings. Therefore science is dependent upon the study of such things as logic and philosophy simply because understanding the human mind is dependent upon logic and philosophy. You can't have science without a human using their mental capacities, logic, and philosophies in order to critically analyze the evidence.

    1. pennyofheaven profile image82
      pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes agree.

    2. EmVeeT profile image80
      EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Excellent comment, AstonFirefly!

      I discovered much of the same during the process of my research. In fact, I found several of the Scientists who ended up Creationists, were originally hell bent on proving Evolution with an absolutely religious conviction urging them forward.

      Being placed in a position where the theories they were attempting to prove and the facts they needed as evidence were undeniably opposed, some of these individuals found themselves lost, confused, flustered, even angry. However, those who were ethical enough to place their personal agendas, feelings or desires aside, found themselves revisiting concepts that led them to relinquish their former habits of thought. Their reasons for doing so, inspired me to dig deeper into a subject I was almost afraid to re-examine.

      Thanks for your insight, AshtonFirefly. I learned recently that one State actually made a law that made it impossible to state the truth about a particular fact. Stating the lie then became the 'truth' by virtue of the imposed law and not the actual evidence. How's that for a twist?????

      GOD BLESS you.

  6. aguasilver profile image87
    aguasilverposted 4 years ago

    Dr. Lumsden (1938-97), Ph.D., had an excellent testimony, thank you.

    It's good to hear from a man who was truly qualified to know that the 'theory' is factually impossible to compute.

    I suspect most folk will not listen the the WHOLE tape unless if suits their preconceptions.

    His most relevant point was that he accepted evolutionary theory as fact BEFORE he had the training and knowledge to have tested and examined the 'evidence' presented, continued preaching the scientific mantra concerning it once he was qualified, and ONLY saw the truth when he had sufficient scientific knowledge to recognise that the theory was an impossibility, no matter how well accepted it had been made.

    But like I said, most folk will not watch the whole video.... pity, the deception and lies will therefore continue.

    1. EmVeeT profile image80
      EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Aguasilver!

      Yes. I found the point you addressed most valuable. I think this is the stance many individuals take. They make a decision to 'choose a side', without really thinking through the 'science'. Once that decision is cemented in the mind, it becomes like a mental tattoo. Many will not consider removing the concept, not because it is a valid one, but because it is too hard to make the mental conformation.

      What I liked about the testimony was his description of that young student, whose study habits were so meticulous as to desire an absolute confirmation, whose discipline of study was so decisive as to feel comfortable going directly to a more skilled authority to discuss the options, facts and ultimate truth, whose heart was so inclined toward grace that she did not dare consider herself above instruction; yet, was confident enough to place herself in the place of being taught what she was missing, if she was missing the point. Awesome.

      I wonder where she is now. I wonder what she is doing. I pray she is enjoying the fruits of her pursuit of excellence.

      Thanks for your comment. I found the link truly engaging. Dr. Lumsden must have been a great lecturer, before and after his conversion to Creationism.

      GOD BLESS you.
      smile

  7. A Troubled Man profile image59
    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago

    This is very interesting...

    "His atheistic philosophy had also left him helpless to deal with guilt and bad habits in his personal life.  This time he was open, and this time he heard the Good News that God had sent His Son to pay the penalty for our sins, and to offer men forgiveness and eternal life.

    A tremendous struggle was going on in Dr. Lumsden’s heart as he listened to the sermon.  When the service ended, the pastor gave an invitation to come to the front and decide once and for all, publicly, to receive Christ.  Dr. Lumsden describes the turmoil he was in:  “With flesh protesting every inch of the way, I found myself walking forward, down to the altar.  And there, found God!  Truly, at that moment, I came to know Him, and received the Lord Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior.”  There’s room at the cross even for know-it-all science professors, if they are willing to humble themselves and bow before the Creator to whom the scientific evidence points.

    Dr. Lumsden rejoiced in his new-found faith, but found out there is a price to pay also.  He was ejected from the science faculty after his dynamic conversion to Christ and creationism.  The Institute for Creation Research invited him to direct their biology department, which he did from 1990 to 1996. "

    http://creationsafaris.com/wgcs_5.htm

    It would appear the good doctor was a very heavy smoker and abusive alcoholic, these two eventually killing him at the age of 59, only several years after he made his declaration of faith. Of course, believers accredit this to his previous life as a nonbeliever...

    "Unfortunately, years of unhealthy habits as an unbeliever, including alcohol and tobacco abuse, took their toll on his body, and he died too soon, at age 59, in 1997."

    1. EmVeeT profile image80
      EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Cool note, Troubled Man.

      By the way, "Hi". How are you?

      I'm glad you've joined the conversation.

      I can't respond to your thoughts right now, because I'm busy. But, I will if I get a chance... maybe later today.. Otherwise...

      I don't feel that I have to publicize what Dr. Lumsden discovered for several reasons... among which:

      He must have written books after his conversion stating his reasons for re-establishing a choice. I'm sure that his later platform is documented for all to access.

      Anyway... I do have to go now.

      GOD BLESS you.
      Until later....
      smilesmile

      1. autumn18 profile image67
        autumn18posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I've been curious about Dr. Lumsden and tried to research today if he had written any books about his realization and new discoveries after he changed his views. I couldn't find anything he'd written and pretty much all the sites had the same bio that A Troubled Man quoted from. Most of what I read wasn't really about science but of a man who decided to start leading a Christian life based on faith. It's an interesting story and one worth looking into, I just couldn't find that much more about it.

        1. EmVeeT profile image80
          EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hi Autumn18.

          May I suggest you check out library resources.

          This man spent his whole life as a Professor. (which is defined in the dictionary as a teacher in the highest academic rank. And...

          He had several areas of specialty. That tells me, he studied hard. He was diligent. He was intelligent.

          To think that he would suddenly stop writing his findings when he made such a life changing decision, one that caused the whole surface of his life to be redirected, does not make sense.

          I'm certain he has books, articles or other documentation to the foundational structures undergirding his change of mindset. The thing is, NOT EVERYTHING is on the internet... (well not yet at least). So, you may find what you are looking for from the University where he last taught, or in a biography, or published diary (if one exists).

          The fact that you are having trouble finding any documentation related to the reasons behind why he changed his premiss may not mean such writings don't exist, only that they are not easily accessible.

          In fact, there may be in a personal journal somewhere, or a compilation of articles. If you read/listened to his testimony you will recall there were many factors directing him to revisit his platform, including mathematical, genetic, molecular and more.

          Dr. Lumsden spent (and he was specific about this) 3 hours and 22 minutes with the young lady who challenged his evolutionary viewpoints. She brought resources with her, in order to back up her position, or reinforce the need to check out areas of discrepancy. Also, she was a math  major as well as a medical student. The interaction was not lightweight.

          I wish I could have been in that room. Though I am not a highly acclaimed scholar/academian I love learning from circumstances where challenges are met, butted and rebutted with good, solid evidence, or logic.

          I hope you find something that helps meet your curiosity. Just remember: Dr. Lumsden is not the only scholar who changed his mind. There are others and for me, listening to other explanations associated with what motivated each change has been equally interesting, equally inspiring... not necessarily inviting change of heart, but at least a more open mind related to the 'facts'.

          GOD BLESS you... Autumn18.

          smile

  8. kathleenkat profile image89
    kathleenkatposted 4 years ago

    They probably mean, for example, when you ask: When was the world created?

    And the answer you are given is "The Bible say X." Hence, thinking stops there, because you have the answer.

    Imagine you were never given an answer. You would keep looking, asking, and attempting to find the answer for yourself. You might find evidence in archaeology and paleontology that point you to an answer, and help you form an answer. Thinking, therefore, continues indefinitely because an answer is never found.

    And thus, you have gained the capacity to understand things.

    1. EmVeeT profile image80
      EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Kathleenkat. I appreciate your comment.

      You say, "Imagine you were never given an answer. You would keep looking, asking, and attempting to find the answer for yourself."

      Interesting. That is plausible. Not necessarily true, but possible for some, but not for everyone.

      What you may not realize is that, in actuality, The Bible doesn't say, the world was created "X". The Bible makes statements. No process is described.

      To me, this means that  even an individual possessing a fairly limited imaginative capability, would be stimulated to wonder how exactly GOD "created the heaven and the earth". (Genesis 1:1) The processes of thought, and infinite possibilities attached to the concept would only be as finite as each individual's imagination (in that case). Therefore, rather than causing a person to 'believe 'x', so "thinking stops"...  I believe The Bible motivates thinking.

      I can only speak for myself, so I will not attempt to do so for others (because that would be unfair~ especially since my thought processes may be limited compared to those of others) but when I first read the words, "God created", I did nothing but try to think of what exactly that meant. How might creation have occurred? The possibilities being endless, and my brain being confined to the finite, invited me to just keep thinking and thinking and thinking...

      One of the biggest reasons, besides the lack of evidence, that I do not believe in Evolution
      is the fact that many people who do, have "exiled God" from the equation. "IF" Evolution is a possibility, as far as I'm concerned, GOD IS IN THE EQUATION.

      Another reason I fail to believe in Evolution is because many who do propose such a 'theory' to be the viable manner in which human life was formed, act as though they have the 'facts'. They don't. However, I may be wrong. Proof would better help me understand if I am wrong.

      I would be very interested in PROOF for a theory, or evidence that a particular theory has the ability beyond the impossible of being probable, but the mutations and permeations are infinite; no such proof exists.

      Therefore, my thinking propels me to establish a bond with the idea that there is a DIVINE CREATOR, WHO with purpose and good intention has Created humankind, that when I die, I will have an Eternal home to enjoy and that while I am alive there is a specific objective that my existence will fulfill. I choose to believe this, rather than that I came from an ape, that when I die my body shall turn to dust and my soul/spirit shall cease to exist.

      Perhaps I lack understanding, that is why I have made these choices. However, using my limited ability to come to a viable conclusion, this has been where I have chosen to place my 'faith'. Is it possible there are a few others who failing to understand, think as I think?

      Again, I appreciate your comments, Kathleenkat. I don't completely agree because to do so would mean that my opinion and your opinion are in harmony. I don't think a person needs to be "point(ed) to an answer (in order to) help... form an answer." I believe most individuals, who truly care to have an answer, think for themselves.

      GOD BLESS you.

      1. kathleenkat profile image89
        kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That's the beauty about stuff you can't prove; you never stop thinking about the possibilities. 'Evolutionists' may never find the answers, thus, they keep thinking and changing the idea as time goes on, and more evidence is found...

        I also don't know that all people who believe evolution to be fact believe God to be false, either. But I certainly don't think that what others do should affect what you (truly) believe: Other people dismissing God isn't a reason for you to dismiss the idea. Same as people believing in God and dismissing evolution does not cause me to dismiss the idea.

        I, myself, think there is something out there bigger and better than human beings could ever understand. Whether that is a God or a mere accidental collision is yet to be determined; and on that, I will never stop wondering.

        Either way, I wasn't trying to come accross as you not thinking, I was simply trying to explain what that other poster probably meant.

        I appreciate your blessing, as well.

        1. EmVeeT profile image80
          EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hey Kathleenkat....

          You said, "Other people dismissing God isn't a reason for you to dismiss the idea. Same as people believing in God and dismissing evolution does not cause me to dismiss the idea."

          You are right! Each individual has a responsibility to decide based on the merits of their own systems of deduction. The sad thing is, a lot of people do sort of tag along, believing whatever seems most popular or socially acceptable.

          There is also the possibility that believing in GOD and believing in Evolution don't have to be mutually exclusive. However, that is what is promoted in this world.

          I believe GOD IS SO AWESOME, SO INDESCRIBABLE, SO INFINITE as to have the capacity to have created this world whatever way HIS HEART DESIRED. Of course, I base this belief on my personal interactions with HIM, since HE IS THE GOD I worship, trust, honor and love. My life experiences give me every reason to consider HIM capable of creating the heaven and the earth in a manifestation that so defies human understanding that it would be pointless explaining it, or trying to do so, for us.

          Besides, if HE IS GOD, why should HE HAVE TO PROVE anything to anyone? (But that is another discussion completely...)

          You said: "I, myself, think there is something out there bigger and better than human beings could ever understand."

          I agree completely.

          You said, "Whether that is a God or a mere accidental collision is yet to be determined; and on that, I will never stop wondering."

          I appreciate your honesty. I also appreciate your desire to know the truth. I think that is all anyone of us can hope to achieve... in as much as is accessible to us.

          You said, "Either way, I wasn't trying to come accross as you not thinking, I was simply trying to explain what that other poster probably meant."

          Your comment is a valuable contribution to this discussion. Thank you for participating. I'm glad you have.

          GOD BLESS you.
          smile

      2. A Troubled Man profile image59
        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Admitting you have no understanding of evolution is the first step towards making the attempt. Of course, if you have no understanding of evolution, your decision to choose to believe in creation is biased and uninformed, hence invalid as a reason to choose.

        Of course, that doesn't mean you can't choose to make a biased and uniformed decision if that is what you wish, but it certainly has no credibility on these forums or anywhere else other than a church, perhaps.

        1. EmVeeT profile image80
          EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Troubled Man....

          You said, "Admitting you have no understanding of evolution is the first step towards making the attempt."

          That is exactly the point. Scientists, being mere humans, and investing themselves into the study thereof, can not say they have an 'actual understanding of evolution'. They can only hypothesize.

          The fact that a particular Scientist comes up with a particular hypothesis doesn't make the concept real. Unless evidence proves different, every hypothesis remains just that... a hypothesis. A guess. A speculative (although in the case of some Scientists ~academically inclined) assumption.

          The fact that you and I don't have a Scientific degree doesn't make our 'guesses' any more or any less valuable, in a general sense. We may not be able to contribute much in a laboratory (perhaps), but that doesn't change the fact that our brain WORKS.

          in fact, sometimes the mind of a non-Scientist has more clarity, because it is not cluttered with misinformation that has proven nothing, is going nowhere and has a probability quotient that measures in the negative.

          TM, you said, "Of course, if you have no understanding of evolution, your decision to choose to believe in creation is biased and uninformed, hence invalid as a reason to choose."

          There is no "of course" about it. As I just expressed, no one really has an understanding of "Evolution". Everything presented to the general public as fact is NOT FACT, but assumption.

          Take the 'tree of life' for instance. This has a one celled organism at the bottom and a man at the top of the tree, with branches showing the various animals and creatures, supposedly evolved from one another. I say supposedly because this tree has no leaves.

          Do you see it?

          A Genealogical Tree has leaves on the branches. There is the human in question at one end, then the parents of this person, then the grandparents, but each branch has leaves, provided that the parents had more than one child and each child had children. As the person digs deeper and discovers more members of the family, be they alive or dead, the branches and the leaves grow thicker, more full.

          But where are the leaves on the 'evolutionary tree'? There are none. Why? Because there are no links. There is no evidence of anything. No matter if the Scientific effort is archaeological, genetic, biological, mathematical and so on.

          Troubled Man, I won't respond to anything else. I will let your comment speak for itself. For it seems to me, that in your mind, despite the lack of credibility in your statements, certain people have no right to express their views publicly.

          GOD BLESS you.

          I really, really pray HE DOES.

          smile

          1. Disappearinghead profile image90
            Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            No evidence in evolutionary theory? No evidence whatsoever in creationism as it is not an evidence based belief. Those in glass houses and all that....

          2. A Troubled Man profile image59
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            There are mountains of evidence to support evolution to the point of it being fact and theory.



            LOL! Sorry, that one was hysterical. My brain works, I can think and understand evolution and the mountains of evidence that support it.



            Please speak for yourself.



            That is entirely false.



            No, I don't.



            Again, your lack of understanding of evolution and your silly claims there is no evidence amounts to little more than faith based nonsense.



            You are free to express your views, but if those views are entirely false and are based on ignorance of the science in question, others will point them out. It's just pure dishonesty on your part.

            1. udontnomi profile image61
              udontnomiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              There is absolutely no absolute proof of the theory of evolution. Belief in evolution is blind faith.

              Natural selection? There is evidence of that. Black cat, white cat.

              1. A Troubled Man profile image59
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                How about the fossil record, bacterial resistance to antibiotics, common traits in embryos, genetic commonalities and the universal genetic code? That's five.

                1. Disappearinghead profile image90
                  Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Not forgetting some swimming crickets just  found in caves in South America. smile

  9. Disappearinghead profile image90
    Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago

    As a believer in God I just cannot accept creationism as a viable explanation.

    Evolutionary theory is grounded in human beings using their God given common sense and intelligence to objectively observe, form a hypothesis, and test for evidence. Over time we develop a theory grounded in testable fact. Where observation does not fit, the theory has the flexibility to adjust course. This is what God intended man to be and do.

    Creationism is not scientific as it assumes it has found the answer then looks for observation to validate the preconceived conclusion. All observation and facts that contradict the hypothesis are ignored. It is rigid and unyielding and shows no humility. Precisely not what God intended man to be.

    If the world was run by those who read a literal bible, aka creationists, we would still be driving horses and carts, infested with parasites and disease, enslaved by religious dogma and institutions, ignorant of the wonders of the universe, and dying before our 40th birthdays.

    Everything material thing that we enjoy or enhances our lives is the result of enquiring minds, the very thing that creationism opposes.

    Science is not democratic. We dont vote for the truth based on what we believe. We cannot just say that we believe in creationism because we have faith in God. No amount of belief or faith can alter the facts. To find the facts we must objectively search for them. Sorry guys but as a believer in God I must side with the atheist over the fundamentalist Christian on this matter.

    1. autumn18 profile image67
      autumn18posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I like this and agree with most of it.

    2. EmVeeT profile image80
      EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Disappearing Head.

      You said:

      Evolutionary theory is grounded in human beings using their God given common sense and intelligence to objectively observe, form a hypothesis, and test for evidence. Over time we develop a theory grounded in testable fact. Where observation does not fit, the theory has the flexibility to adjust course. This is what God intended man to be and do.


      This concept that GOD HAS Given man the capacity to use his/her human mind is agreeable. However there are some platforms that we might be careful not to take.

      "Evolutionary theory" is not "grounded in human beings... as such. Darwin's assumptions were grounded in something no one really wants to mention, that is: The man (Darwin) who came up with the theory of evolution actually uses this theory to propose "the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life".

      For this reason, people such as Adolf Hitler were great admirers of this 'unproven theory'. In fact, Hitler is said to have dedicated much thought to accomplishing a philosophy that may have been spawned from the concepts of Darwin. I often wonder how many people are even aware of the actual title of Charles Darwin's book.


      You said: "Creationism is not scientific as it assumes it has found the answer then looks for observation to validate the preconceived conclusion. All observation and facts that contradict the hypothesis are ignored." Emphasis mine.

      Disappearinghead, Evolution does this EXACT thing!!

      You said, "Everything material thing that we enjoy or enhances our lives is the result of enquiring minds, the very thing that creationism opposes. "

      Are you assuming to know what 'Creationists" embrace and oppose? Are you aware that every single individual on the face of the earth has a very particular mind set, one that varies vastly from the mind set of anyone else?

      You said:

      If the world was run by those who read a literal bible, aka creationists, we would still be driving horses and carts, infested with parasites and disease, enslaved by religious dogma and institutions, ignorant of the wonders of the universe, and dying before our 40th birthdays.


      How can you make such a general comment? Are you aware that the reason there is such a thing as disinfecting and sterilization of bacteria in Hospitals directly attributes to a Christian doctor who lived in another century, because he noticed the unclean manner doctors went from patient to patient, after touching patients who were ill with viruses, or who had infectious diseases, and many who were in circumstances of great vulnerability (such as just having had an operation) and realizing patients were dying and diseases were spreading because of this dirty practice. The young doctor then made a point of declaring that hands should be washed when doctors moved from one patient to another. This is just one of hundreds of thousands of examples of what Christians have contributed to society over the course of ages past, and present.

      I will not tell you the name of the individual. I believe you need to learn how to do some research before you make a statement like that one.


      You said, "Everything material thing that we enjoy or enhances our lives is the result of enquiring minds, the very thing that creationism opposes.

      I'm sorry, Disappearinghead. I don't know where you get your information from but you have so very much to learn. I pray GOD In Heaven will help you develop some wisdom. For your statements present the thoughts of an individual who is lacking in resourcefulness and accuracy.

      You said, "Science is not democratic."

      What is it then? Is Science a area of study designed to work against the common people?

      You said, "We dont vote for the truth based on what we believe."

      Truth is constant. Truth exists despite the efforts to bury it. Truth is not subject to what humans believe. If this is what you are saying then we are in agreement.

      You said, "We cannot just say that we believe in creationism because we have faith in God".

      You have said a lot about how you cannot believe in something unless there are evidence to prove the observations are factual. Would you be so kind as to present an actual FACT, not a theory. Please. Share a fact proving Evolution is not just an assumption.

      You said, "No amount of belief or faith can alter the facts. To find the facts we must objectively search for them."

      Agreed. Facts are immutable. You should make a point of learning to find evidence supporting your statements, since the use of 'facts has the potential to help make a concept plausible, fair, intelligent and inspiring.

      You said, "Sorry guys but as a believer in God I must side with the atheist over the fundamentalist Christian on this matter."

      I'm actually sorry for the "Atheist" who you side with on this subject. If you can slaughter the foundations of logic when stating such views despite your faith in GOD, I'd hate to find out how you would defend yourself against those you don't agree with on a topic."

      GOD BLESS you. GOD HELP you. GOD Open your eyes. In JESUS' NAME. Amen.

      1. Disappearinghead profile image90
        Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Ooh where's me handbag?

      2. cascoly profile image60
        cascolyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        first, you lose because of the 'she-who-uses-nazis-automatically-loses debate rule.  hitler also was a vegetarian - so what?  this is an elementary error in logic

        but what's really funny is that the doctor you mention, Semmelweiss,  was a Jew, not a christian!!!!!

        not that it matters, since he didnt make his discovery by a message from god, but from basic scientific research

        1. EmVeeT profile image80
          EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hi Cascoly,

          You said, "the 'she-who-uses-nazis-automatically-loses debate rule.  hitler also was a vegetarian - so what?  this is an elementary error in logic"...

          I have never heard of this rule. If it exists, this must mean a rule book exists. Point me to it. I want to read the standard for myself.

          If this is a rule you have followed for a particular reason, please share how the rule came about. I'm interested.

          You also said, "but what's really funny is that the doctor you mention, Semmelweiss,  was a Jew, not a christian!!!!!"

          Sorry Cascoly....

          I was not referring to Dr. Semmel Weiss.

          The man I am referring to was not Jewish. Although, a Jewish Doctor implementing applications of cleanliness would not surprise me at all. Perhaps, this mode of operation cannot be attributed to just one person.

          The individual I am referring to was a Christian. And, the man who I am referring to realized the need to employ tactics of cleanliness after reading the Book of Leviticus. That is a Book in The Bible.

          I will not provide his name. Keep looking. You may discover what I mentioned is not a figment of my imagination, nor is it inaccurate fact. My information is correct.

          I appreciate your comment and your participation.

          GOD BLESS you.
          smile

          1. cascoly profile image60
            cascolyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            first, any doctor in leviticus was also a Hebrew, definitely NOT a christian as you claimed -- there are many discussions of cleanliness, but there's nothing in the bible that describes the modern knowledge of bacteria, etc.    it's like saying abel was a farmer so therefore he's responsible for modern agricultural techniques

            1. EmVeeT profile image80
              EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Hi Cascoly...

              You said, " it's like saying abel was a farmer so therefore he's responsible for modern agricultural techniques"

              Sorry, the analogy you provide and my example are as far from one another as east is from the west, not speaking globally... In other words, the two shall never meet.

              GOD BLESS you.
              smile

              1. cascoly profile image60
                cascolyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                please elaborate - you took a vague reference to some sort of alleged healing
                in an old mythology book and claimed that was the start of modern medicine - unfortunately, actual history shows germ theory wasnt discovered til the 19th c -- and you still beed to explain how you can call a person christian 1000+ years before jesus!

          2. EmVeeT profile image80
            EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Hey Cascoly,

            I'm back to prove my humanity... smile

            Regarding Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis... You are right. He was Jewish. Not Christian. Semmelweis was in fact the individual to whom I was referring. I went back to double-check my resource and discovered my mistake.

            You see... I am willing to admit my mistakes.

            smile

            GOD BLESS you.


            You see, I didn't remember his full name.

            1. aguasilver profile image87
              aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              The fact remains that the scientists and doctors of the time refused his imput and drummed him out of his profession because THEY had not discovered bacteria at that time, and could not until God revealed the microscope to them.

              So countless women died in childbirth for their intransigence.

              1. A Troubled Man profile image59
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Seems they died because God didn't reveal the microscope to them yet.

                1. aguasilver profile image87
                  aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  No TM, they died because they refused to acknowledge what God had revealed in the Torah, in fact they died because science had refused Gods advice.

                  1. cascoly profile image60
                    cascolyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    then why did so many other readers of the christian torah [as previous poster alleged]  still died of disease?  leviticus did little or nothing to further medicine - plagues & diseases continued to destroy people until SCIENCE provided the answer 2000 years later

                  2. A Troubled Man profile image59
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Let me get this straight, you're saying that women and children died because of some revelation in the Torah, yet Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis came along and told doctors to wash their hands and "BAM!" he fixed their intransigence problem and they no longer died.

                    I would have to conclude Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis is a bigger miracle maker than Jesus. LOL!

              2. cascoly profile image60
                cascolyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                better check your history -- both bacteria  AND the microscope were known in Semmelweiss' time - the micrioscope was already hundreds of years old - and once more, man learned any need for god.  itwas people like koch, semmelweiss and pasteur who used the scientific method to prove the link between bacteria and disease.   and none of these cited either god or levit. in their scientific papers because it was irrelevant.  science, not faith, saved lives

  10. kathleenkat profile image89
    kathleenkatposted 4 years ago

    I think the underlying problem here is people are putting "Scientific Theories" and "Beliefs" in the same basket.

    Science is separate from religion. It is an academic discipline. One's religion has nothing to do with finding 'evidence' and drawing various possibilities and conclusions from what is there on the table.

    Religion is separate from science. It is a human faith. Science has nothing to do with finding your faith, and what it means to you, and what you choose to believe and how you choose to act from there.

    1. Disappearinghead profile image90
      Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Oh so true. I just don't understand why some insist on trying to find scientific truth in the bible. It's like trying to find direction in a horoscope; people see what they want to see.

    2. EmVeeT profile image80
      EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Katheenkat.

      You said, "I think the underlying problem here is people are putting "Scientific Theories" and "Beliefs" in the same basket."

      Good solid point.

      You should present this fair argument to those who use the theory Evolution to disprove the existence of GOD.

      smile

      GOD BLESS you.
      smile

      1. kathleenkat profile image89
        kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Agreed. Some would say that there is no proof of God, however, there is no proof that God does not exist. Certainly not in science.

        1. EmVeeT profile image80
          EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Awesome conclusion. Thank you for this comment. 

          GOD BLESS you.
          smile

          1. Paul Wingert profile image81
            Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Science is not in the business of proving or disproving the existance of a god. Science is in the business of dealing with facts, not faith.

            1. aguasilver profile image87
              aguasilverposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Science used to be in the business of figuring out how God did it, but I agree they did lose the plot and start trying to prove why God did not, and of how it just 'happened'.

              A small diversion, but one which has killed many.

              1. A Troubled Man profile image59
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Why were many killed?

    3. pennyofheaven profile image82
      pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Wouldn't the scientist first need to believe whatever before developing the said theory?

      1. A Troubled Man profile image59
        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That's not how science works. "Beliefs" are for believers, not scientists.

        1. pennyofheaven profile image82
          pennyofheavenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Who said?

  11. Paul K Francis profile image82
    Paul K Francisposted 4 years ago

    I have a high regard for scientific discovery and theory including that which describes the age of the sun and the earth, and the evolution of life on this planet. Although theories are often changed or improved upon over time, I accept these things as fact - it's a beautiful thing. And this does not at all diminish the presence of God in my life or my trust in Christ Jesus. It's a beautiful thing!

    1. EmVeeT profile image80
      EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Paul K. Francis...

      You say, "And this does not at all diminish the presence of God in my life or my trust in Christ Jesus. It's a beautiful thing!"

      Thank you so very much for your comment. It's valid. I appreciate that you continue to have "trust in CHRIST JESUS". That is "a beautiful thing".

      Unfortunately, my observations lean me toward believing that those who believe in Evolution eventually end up disbelieving in GOD. However, there is no logical reason behind this phenomenon, other than the inspiration behind the theory. (But that is another subject entirely.)

      Also... the reason I posted this thread was to give evidence to the theory that there are not many individuals who know why they believe in Evolution, as there is no factual evidence to prove the veracity of the theory. Yet my proposal that blind faith undergirds the decision has been rejected, for the most part. If I am correct, then the position is based on "blind faith".

      Since no one has offered a Scientific FACT to prove the absolute nature of Evolution as opposed to the hypothetical nature supported by a lot of studies,  I remain convinced, most people don't know why they believe in Evolution... other than, having heard, followed, examined or imagined there is solid evidence supporting this theory, Either that, or they don't want to be considered ignorant for believing the alternative. As far as I can tell, no one here has actually provided SOLID EVIDENCE to support the view.

      Hence... in all the posts directed at me, IMMUTABLE PROOF was not provided, only links highlighting the studies related, studies promoting, studies undergirding, studies hoping to discover something... which I can find on my own without any help... if I am so inclined.

      Many of these studies are handsomely supported by tax dollars granted through Governments, that love the idea of eliminating GOD from the equation of life. So, those Scientists that do not agree with Evolution or believe otherwise are belittled, ostracized, exiled, and even mocked.

      Those factors do not make Evolution true though. This is my point.

      GOD BLESS you...
      smile

      1. Disappearinghead profile image90
        Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        So you close your eyes to all the evidence and links provided to you, yet you singularly fail to present eny evidence for intelligent design or creationism (whichever one you support). Let's be honest here, you never were interested in learning anything about evolution were you.

      2. A Troubled Man profile image59
        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The fact that you have already made your position clear in that you have no intention of hearing anything related to science or evolution because of your beliefs in God and that no amount of facts or evidence will ever shake the foundation of your faith would only show the dishonesty of your post here. How very sad indeed it is when believers are compelled to do such things in order to defend their religion.

        1. EmVeeT profile image80
          EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Gentlemen, you forget... I started this thread and I asked you to provide proof for your reasons to believe in Evolution. You have not.

          Disappearinghead,

          You say: "So you close your eyes to all the evidence and links provided to you..."

          The links provided PROVED NOTHING. They are links that present findings of the studies, but NOT EVIDENCE... not FACTUAL EVIDENCE.

          i can do an experiment (and have) complete with 'hypothesis, objective, observations and conclusions" but that doesn't make anything FACT... this would only show what I think based on the variables at hand, based on the elements available and the circumstances at my disposal, based on utensils used, based on number of the same results and the number of the repeated experiment. Without CONSTANTS the experiment remains a project in assumption.

          With the studies in Evolution the MAJOR COMPONENTS are missing. That FIRST LIFE from NOTHING is not available, has never been created in a Scientific experiment and cannot be LINKED TO ANY OTHER LIVE CREATURE on the face of the earth.

          You say, "yet you singularly fail to present eny evidence for intelligent design or creationism (whichever one you support)."

          What evidence would you like? Would you like me to say I believe in CREATIONISM... that GOD CREATED THE EARTH, HUMANKIND and EVERY LIVING CREATURE on the face of this planet, that I Believe IN FAITH, notwithstanding that I have no tangible evidence, [i]BECAUSE I DO HAVE EXPERIENTIAL EVIDENCE of HIS EXISTENCE.
          And, since HE IS REAL to me, based on my personal experiences, I choose to also believe what THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT HIM CREATING THIS EARTH.

          There you have it. I printed it all out. That is what I believe, based on the evidence of my personal experiences, that I would never place on this Forum or on a board such as this because there are so many individuals who are just living to mock people like me that the effort would be pointless. However... I KNOW what I KNOW. I have PROOF for what I know. I do not care who would make fun of me for my position. Especially, since the THREAD IS NOT ABOUT me stating a position.

          I asked someone, anyone, who is A BELIEVER in EVOLUTION TO STATE ONE IMMUTABLE FACT PROVING this theory deserves loyalty and a following.

          What I have learned is: there are many people here who may know how to read, but cannot answer a question, or respond to a request.

          No one has satisfied my curiousity.

          Troubled Man....

          I don't know why I like you despite all the biting ways you try to sidetrack me, or make me appear ignorant.

          I do though. Believe in Evolution if you like. Be an Atheist if you like, but won't you please be honest... with yourself?

          You mock me and my position, my ability to understand, my sense of discernment, but in your heart you know, though you cannot, and will not admit it. ...  you have not responded to my request. No one here has.

          Troubled Man... I want to thank you for complimenting me. You probably don't see how you have, but you have.

          GOD BLESS you, Sir.
          GOD BLESS you, Richly, Abundantly and Above all you ever imagined. I pray this, in JESUS' NAME. Amen.

          smile

          1. A Troubled Man profile image59
            A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Of course not, we don't "believe" in evolution, we understand it.



            Exactly. We already know that.



            And yet, you demand 100% proof beyond a shadow of a doubt from us. Could you possibly be even more hypocritical or dishonest?



            I am not the one making you look ignorant.

            1. EmVeeT profile image80
              EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Hmmmm. Troubled Man.

              I keep hoping, thinking, wondering... if there is a glimpse of generousity or goodness in you. I know the low rating attached to your name does not reflect your capacity to write. You write very well.

              Too bad you use words to wound and to diminish others.

              GOD BLESS you, Troubled Man.

              Somewhere deep inside, I know there is a heart of flesh. I pray that heart of stone that you present in your commentaries will not cause you to lose out on the BEST GOD HAS for you.

              smile

              1. autumn18 profile image67
                autumn18posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Hi EmVeeT. I know you feel like you are being wounded or diminished but I don't think that is the case. I think I see some frustration because this debate is sort of going around in circles. The biggest issue I see is that you are seeing evolution and creationism being two different theories when they aren't. Creationism something that you decide to believe in. Evolution is a scientific study. No one needs to believe in evolution, it exists.

                I understand that you are saying that there isn't 100% proof of evolution therefore it's blind faith. There is so much more to it that anyone can research that makes it more than blind faith. If you want to believe in creationism then go right ahead. I'm not trying to tell you your beliefs are wrong but I do think you have some misconceptions regarding evolution.

                1. EmVeeT profile image80
                  EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Hi Autumn18,

                  You are very kind.

                  Thing is, Evolution and Creationism are two very different theories. One is bent on denying the existence of the other.

                  Yes. I believe GOD Created this earth. I also believe HE CREATED the entire Universe. My original question: "what basis do you have for your belief in 'the Theories of Evolution'? " has not been answered by any one individual.

                  What I have been given, over and over are links that support the theory, or links supporting a study related to Evolution. That is not what I asked for, because I am perfectly capable (despite all the comments otherwise) to find my own links supporting Evolution.

                  However, I am not in the business of believing other people, no matter how simple or complex minded they might be, unless they give me a good reason to consider the concept they have shared.

                  Do you know that Charles Darwin himself said that if evidence for his theory wasn't discovered in one hundred years, the theory should be thrown out?

                  Autumn... I am a good deal older than you are, I think. That doesn't make me smarter. I think this means I have had a good deal more life experiences than you have. More than that, there are topics I have studied that would shake your core.

                  That is why I won't conform to 'theory' that has no substantial evidence and is even refuted by those who have the scholarly discipline and capacity to make an informed (if informed means structural facts) decision.

                  I didn't place Dr. Lumsden's conversion in my OP to prove that one intelligent man changed his mind based on FACTS he noted. I placed that there to remind people that everyone is RESPONSIBLE to FIND OUT FOR SELF what is real.

                  I believe you understand that just because EVERYONE says some "thing" is true, that does not make that "thing" true. The fact that many, many scholars and Scientists have been content to give up their career as a supporters of Evolution (because those that rule the Educational Systems have decreed Evolution SHALL BE PROMOTED ~ and if someone will not agree, then that person is exiled from the System) because once they realized the TRUTH, they could NOT support a lie... this fact should create a hunger in those who have never really studied the concept, to know the facts.

                  There are millions of individuals that would do anything (if necessary) in order to become rich and famous, and loved by all. That is just human nature. Yet, many individuals with the scholarly capacity to be/remain rich and famous chose to give up everything they have, fame, position, money, prestige, friends and more once they realized what they were supporting was FALSE.

                  Evolutionists are supported by Governmental Grants. They are given status in Universities. They are exalted in the eyes of their peers. But the desire to be part of the 'acceptable group' does not make a theory true.

                  Common acceptance does not make a study, or the theory TRUE.

                  I am repeatedly mocked because I believe GOD CREATED the earth. But, that does not make what I believe untrue.

                  Everyone will know the TRUTH in the end. For that reason, if I am wrong, I will find it out, won't I?

                  I'm not hurt by the comments directed at me. I am okay with the accusations of my not having researched the subject. While I am not a medical or science scholar, I am more than capable of researching a subject thoroughly. I don't have to prove what I have found. Neither do I provide links (for the most part) to those who disagree with me. Why? Because there are a hundred million (or more) websites on the internet. LINKS can be found to support any train of thought. That does not make the supportive presentations true.

                  I don't have misconceptions. I believe what I believe based on evidence that cannot be refuted... evidence that I would not share on this thread or Forum. Why?

                  I'm sure you know the answer.

                  You also said, "I understand that you are saying that there isn't 100% proof of evolution therefore it's blind faith. There is so much more to it that anyone can research that makes it more than blind faith."

                  Not necessarily so.

                  By the same token that I am free to believe what I believe, and so is everyone else, there is great value in considering the facts of every matter.
                  The problem is, most of us don't have a scientific background so we don't have the intellectual foundations to check the experimental or contextual information that we have been given as evidence. Those that do are quickly shut down because they are kicked out of the discussion.

                  Therefore:

                  It is more honest to admit that this subject that has been given the high esteem of a scientific fact is actually just the product of Darwin's imagination, one that everyone who would rather NOT BELIEVE IN GOD can't wait to trust blindly.

                  There is so much more behind the support of this theory. Most people would not bother or care to research. Time will prove though... those that have agendas that mean to suppress the masses count on the blind faith of those they consider easily distracted and manipulated in order to achieve their goals.  Yes. There is so much more behind it all.

                  GOD BLESS you, Autumn.

                  smile

                  1. twosheds1 profile image60
                    twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    "Do you know that Charles Darwin himself said that if evidence for his theory wasn't discovered in one hundred years, the theory should be thrown out?"

                    That is exactly what all scientist say, or imply, every time they offer a hypothesis. That is the essence of science.

                    "Thing is, Evolution and Creationism are two very different theories. One is bent on denying the existence of the other."

                    Evolution does not deny creationism. All evolution says is that an outside agency is not needed, and shows how the process proceeded without an outside agency. Lots of people have offered you links, but apparently you haven't read any of them.

                  2. A Troubled Man profile image59
                    A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Creationism is not a theory, but you are somewhat correct in that it denies the existence of evolution, but actually it's the dishonest believers who are the ones doing the denying.



                    Yes, it has, however your beliefs are causing you to reject everything everyone is saying to you, which you openly admitted...



                    To say your question hasn't been answered is obviously irrelevant in light of that conviction.



                    Where did he say that? Provide a source and citation, please. So far, it is obvious that you're misquoting others to support your arguments.



                    Then, by all means, shake our cores.
                    lol

              2. A Troubled Man profile image59
                A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                While it is somewhat interesting and telling that believers are compelled to degrade and insult others personally, it does get quite tiresome, too.



                Really?

                Many here who don't share your beliefs could really care less if you hold those beliefs, however you have gone well beyond that and instead are now dishonestly rejecting scientific fact and explaining how you've carefully analyzed it all in order to come to that conclusion, while all the time contradicting yourself with comments such as this...



                Those are the words of a completely closed mind that has no intention of learning or showing anything of value regarding science or evolution beyond those words.

                If all you said was that you believe in God because you have faith and that you have little understanding of evolution and science, hence couldn't comment intelligently on the subject, you would have most certainly gained a lot of respect for being honest.

                But instead...

          2. Disappearinghead profile image90
            Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Oh for goodness sake.

            You demand proof for evolution but you provide none for creationism. You cite those who abandoned careers or are afraid to because they say evolution is false, but you neglect to observe that they BELIEVE it is false which is very different. You insist that creationism musf be true because God is real to you via experience thus your literal interpretation must be valid, but you neglect to acknowledge that there are very many others to whom God is also real via experience who believe a literal interpretation of Genesis is nonsense and thus endorse evolution.

  12. janesix profile image60
    janesixposted 4 years ago

    Atheists are sheep, asleep at the wheel. Evolution is laughable.

    1. twosheds1 profile image60
      twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      "Believers are sheep, asleep at the wheel. Creation is laughable."

      FTFY

  13. kathleenkat profile image89
    kathleenkatposted 4 years ago

    EmVeeT;

    Just to be fair, could you provide us evidence of a creator? I read in one of your posts that you said that you did have evidence, you just didn't wish to share because it was unrelated to this topic. I think it can be related, and probably help people understand eachother better. If you are willing to share, please do so...

    1. EmVeeT profile image80
      EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Dear Kathleenkat,

      I respect your contribution to this thread. You have made some concise and just observations. However, how long do you think it would take some of those who continue to insist that I have not researched my subject to  use whatever I share publicly in some derogatory manner?

      I'll tell you what. I will pray about sharing with you. Just you. If that is acceptable to you, of course.

      smile

      GOD BLESS you.

      1. twosheds1 profile image60
        twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Present your evidence. If it's valid, we'll accept it. If it is not, then it will be discarded. such is the nature of science. And with all due respect, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the forum. You shouldn't have posted such a provocative question if you didn't expect to get some grief over it.

        1. EmVeeT profile image80
          EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hey there, Twosheds1:

          You said, "And with all due respect, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the forum. You shouldn't have posted such a provocative question if you didn't expect to get some grief over it."

          I'm not upset over anything that has been posted.  Your sentiments are fair, Twoheds1.

          You also said, "Present your evidence. If it's valid, we'll accept it. If it is not, then it will be discarded. such is the nature of science."

          Some personal experiences are not meant to be shared with everyone.
          smile

          Thanks for your participation. Your views are appreciated.

          GOD BLESS you.
          smile

  14. ocbill profile image74
    ocbillposted 4 years ago

    There is a very interesting piece on evolution, an hour ling on youtube
    Everything You Know is Wrong - Lloyd Pye

    The transition of evolution is completely wrong. People should not just dismiss it as some crazy guy or loon. After all, nobody in 1400 thought the earth was round. Nobody in the 40s thought we'd have video conferencing phones, holograms, and so on.
    I may lose some credibility after I bring up Bern, Switzerland and Europe's Halo-colldder (a possible time machine)

    Also, so far science applies only to this planet. There are 1000s of scientist confused and dumbfounded by some events they cannot explain.

    1. cascoly profile image60
      cascolyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        that's insulting to loons

      if you've bothered to read this thread, you'd know that statement needs a BIT more evidence before anyone 's going to take you seriously

      -- quick wiki check reveals:

      In the late 1990s, Pye obtained a curiously shaped skull from a couple in El Paso, Texas that he believes is an alien-human hybrid and proof that humans are descended from extraterrestrial beings he calls "terraformers".[7] DNA tests show that the skull is from a human male. American clinical neurologist Steven Novella believes the skull belongs to a child who suffered from hydrocephalus.[8][9]


      Pye was born in Houma, Louisiana,...He earned a football scholarship to Tulane University, New Orleans as a Running back/Punter from 1964–1968.[15][16] He was Tulane's leading punter 1967-8.[17] He graduated in 1968 with a B.S. in psychology, and joined the U.S. Army as a military intelligence specialist.[13]


      ------
      in another words, NO SCIENTIFIC credentials and a history or crackpot ideas



      first part is irrelevant except as it proves the case for the advancement of science at the expense of religious superstition.  as far as the collider  drive-by non sequitor [ie, with nothing to back it up]-  posting a random assortment of tired creationist cliches is not the way to 'gain' credibility



      name and document TEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    2. A Troubled Man profile image59
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      One of the two postulates of Special Relativity states: "The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference." That would include anywhere in the universe. So far, the only place scientists assume this postulate doesn't stand up is inside a black hole.



      So what? Does that mean we jump to conclusions attempting to explain them?

    3. twosheds1 profile image60
      twosheds1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      So science doesn't apply to the Moon or Mars? How did Curiousity get to Mars then?

      1. EmVeeT profile image80
        EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        EXCUSE me all...

        My child has been hospitalized. I will be back to the Forum when things get back to normal...

        I apologize.

        GOD BLESS you all in the meantime.

        1. autumn18 profile image67
          autumn18posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I hope everything is ok or that it turns out ok.

          1. EmVeeT profile image80
            EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Autumn... I truly appreciate your kind sentiments toward us. She is being watched until stabilized. In the meantime, i continue to BELIEVE GOD WILL keep her safe from any detriment. She is a victim of a debilitating disease. This makes her vulnerable to aggravating circumstances relating to any viral attack you or I would simply put up with for a day or a week.

            I am believing she will be home in a few days. In the meantime, I may not be here to respond to posts... such as the last few days worth of posts.

            Unless I need a stimulating distraction from harsh realities, that is. (LOL... smilewink)

            GOD BLESS you, Sweetheart. Thank you for caring to share your encouragement!

            smile

  15. SoManyPaths profile image61
    SoManyPathsposted 4 years ago

    Darwinism fits into the accepted scientific community. Look at the videos from Lloyd Pye - "Everything You Were Told Was Wrong". Not sure how I stumbled upon it but it is a good listen. about 90 minutes

    1. EmVeeT profile image80
      EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Wow. Hominoids, Neanderthal, Pre-humans... pfhhhh. Wow.

      What concepts Pye has.

      I love that he goes through a very descriptive introduction speaking about how the 'Evolutionists" can't prove their Darwinistic premise because there is no link... but he does mention how very soon a link will be found.

      I agree with that concept for reasons that are very much unlike Pye's. However, there is a lot of information given in his discourse, and I don't have the time to go into a study relating to what he is presenting, to see how feasible, realistic, accurate, plausible it all is... I'm in a really tight season (over the next few weeks/month(s)) ...

      However, I can tell you that some of the ideas he's pushing around I have considered, as structures outside those he is postulating.

      I so appreciate the information you shared SoManyPaths. Yes. This was a good listen.

      I may start up another Thread at some point considering what has been shared in his presentation (not for a long time though...).

      GOD BLESS you.
      smile

  16. EmVeeT profile image80
    EmVeeTposted 4 years ago

    Cascoly, I'm sorry to have to be the one to inform you, since you consider my words fairy tales, and you dare not believe anything I write; still, the truth is, evolution is the theory; UFO's and Aliens will prove themselves, despite the lack of documentation in scientific journals. If it's documentation you're looking for, go to the Government. Oh... sorry... the documents they carry in relation to the subject are considered Top Secret. That means you will have to go to those who have first hand evidence. For instance... those who have seen with their own eyes, or experienced with their own i]bodies[/i] the proof that Aliens exist. Among these you will find cases outlined and described in great detail, by Military Leaders, Doctors, Lawyers, Writers, and "the average man, woman and child".

    Now, I don't hold to the theory of Aliens, per se. I believe the manifestations individuals have witnessed, or (sadly) experienced, are demonic, not extra-terrestrial. However, they are real, in whichever form they, in time, prove to actually exist. In the meantime, can you and I simply agree to disagree here. You see, this interaction between us, has a tendency to drag. (Not trying to be mean here...)

    smile

    GOD BLESS you, Sir.

    1. A Troubled Man profile image59
      A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Actually, it's the lack of evidence, there is none to support visiting aliens.



      No one cares about their personal experiences because they are most likely lying or delusional, like others who share irrational beliefs.



      And, just like those who hold religious beliefs and claim time will tell are just blowing hot air.

      1. kathleenkat profile image89
        kathleenkatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I am very confused. Why is it that there needs to be evidence for something to exist? That is very egotistical; there also isn't any evidence that UFOs don't exist (I would say that there is more unknowns to the latter than the former). The concept of "we are alone in the universe" seems very egotistical to me.

        Hey, there also isn't any evidence that God doesn't exist, either.

        1. EmVeeT profile image80
          EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hey there, Kathleenkat!

          You said, "there... isn't any evidence that UFOs don't exist ..." and "...there also isn't any evidence that God doesn't exist, either".

          You got that right!!!

          Well said!

          GOD BLESS you!
          smile

        2. A Troubled Man profile image59
          A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Because, then you can conjure anything from your imagination and pretend it exists, just like gods.



          It's egotistical to distinguish fantasy from reality?



          And, there isn't any visiting aliens existing, so we can conclude they were probably the result of someones imagination.



          Who said we were alone?



          Or, leprechaun, or unicorns, or giant invisible purple dragons... etc. etc. etc.

        3. eternals3ptember profile image60
          eternals3ptemberposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah, but we know life exists, *us*, so we assume other life exists.

          If we knew other gods existed, then the UFO thing would be a great analogy.

          1. cascoly profile image60
            cascolyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            no - all we know is that life exists on earth, and there's growing evidence life may once have existed on mars;  you cant make the jump to therefore life must exist elsewhere.  i do however believe it's LIKELY there is other life in the universe  -- if so, it would be yet another example of evolution - one that is predicted by science, but denied by fundamentalist creationists

            there may be life on other planets, and some of them may have visited earth.  so far there's no conclusive evidence of that [the conspiracy theories hold that since the govt wont produce evidence FOR the existence of UFOs, therefore, UFOs must exist -- illogical,  but common]

            the point though was OP keeps claiming there are alternatives to evolution, but she then either regurgitates variopus creationist falsehoods about evolution [it's just a theory, violates 2nd law, etc, etc], or she throws out tangential theories like UFOs which wouldnt affect evolution whether true or false

  17. 60
    Rajjpodgeposted 4 years ago

    There will never be any evidence.  Its on the spiritual plane.

    1. EmVeeT profile image80
      EmVeeTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No matter. The spiritual dimension exists. People experience it in the physical. Therefore, while some cannot prove what they encounter/experience, others can. In my case, I have many instances where I could prove my experiences, but I'm not willing to share those circumstances with those who mock, or desire to disbelieve. Each instance is personal and valuable to me.

      I will not prove to anyone GOD's existence. GOD HAS THE POWER, WISDOM and CAPABILITY to prove HIMSELF to anyone HE WISHES. If HE Chooses not to do so, then HE has a reason. HIS Reason will be much more perfect and just than any purpose or reason I could have; therefore, I leave to HIM the final decision.

      Can HE PROVE HIMSELF? Certainly, Will HE? Only HE KNOWS. When HE DOES, the evidence is unmistakable. When HE DOES NOT, HE HAS A REASON. I would never question HIM. HE KNOWS WHAT HE IS DOING.

      One thing I do know... GOD DOES not necessarily look at our actions, or listen to the words we shoot out of our mouths or put into writing... perhaps carelessly... GOD DEALS with the heart of man, not the mind or the body; for these carnal attributes are fickle. GOD DEALS with the heart because it is the heart of man where the spirit behind all motivations exist.

      GOD BLESS you, Rajpodge!
      smile

      1. A Troubled Man profile image59
        A Troubled Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No, it doesn't, because there is no evidence it exists.



        That is highly questionable and most likely false. It is their belief they experience it.



        You believe you had experiences, but you most likely did not.



        We already know that. Tell us something new.



        Ah, here comes the excuses, right on schedule.



        One lame excuse after another.



        Sorry, but hearts pump blood, what you refer to is all in the mind.

  18. cascoly profile image60
    cascolyposted 4 years ago

    While waiting for the creationists to actually produce some evidence for their claims, I've added a new hub:

    http://cascoly.hubpages.com/hub/Top-10- … -Evolution

 
working