jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (245 posts)

The Dispute on Evolution

  1. A Troubled Man profile image60
    A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago

    There is no dispute on evolution.

    It's one of the best understood, thoroughly tested scientific facts ever.

    No aspect of it at all is based on anything but sound, evidence-based, science.

    The current Pope accepts evolution, the previous Pope did, the one before him did. The current Bishop of Canterbury accepts evolutions, the previous one did, and the one before him did. Francis Collins, one of the leading scientists on DNA accepts evolution and he's a Christian. Ken Miller, one of the lead witnesses in the pro-evolution trials, is a devout Catholic.

    The overwhelming majority of Christians, including several on this board, accept evolution.

    The debate on Evolution is not one between atheists and theists. Most theists agree that evolution is true.

    The debate on Evolution is one between the scientifically literate and the scientific illiterate.

    It's not even a debate. It's the entire world trying to educate the last few people who haven't caught up with scientific facts.

    Your children and your grandchildren are going to grow up in a world where evolution is thoroughly understood as irrefutable fact.

    Deal with it. smile

    1. 0
      Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Wow!! This is the first time I've read a comment from you that admits the overwhelming majority of Christians accept evolution. Good for you.

      Incidently, what blew up your skirt and made you post this?

      1. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I don't think I ever said they didn't.



        If I said it was you, do you promise not to publicly expose what you found there?

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Not in so many words, no.



          lol Even if it was me, I wouldn't publicly expose what I'd found. That wouldn't be nice.

        2. 0
          Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You have. Then again it was primarily directed toward those who have argued against evolution.




          I think I'm too young to be reading this exchange

          1. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Exactly, which this thread is aimed

            1. 0
              Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Okay. but well spoken topic ( Guess I'm not a Christian anymore since I agree with evolution lol)

    2. Silverspeeder profile image60
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Putting aside the creation theory i still cant get over these facts which still haven't been explained therefor my own personal conclusion is that evolution theory is still incomplete.
      1. MOON DUST
      Meteoritic dust falls on the earth continuously, adding up to thousands, if not millions, of tons of dust per year. Realizing this, and knowing that the moon also had meteoritic dust piling up for what they thought was millions of years, N.A.S.A. scientists were worried that the first lunar ship that landed would sink into the many feet of dust which should have accumulated.

      However, only about one-eight of an inch of dust was found, indicating a young moon.

      Meteoritic material contributes nickel to the oceans. Taking the amount of nickel in the oceans and the supply from meteoritic dust yields an age figure for the earth of just several thousand years, not the millions (or billions) expressed by evolutionists. This, and the lack of meteoritic dust piles on the earth, lend to the belief in a young earth.


      2. MAGNETIC FIELD
      The earth's magnetic field is decaying rapidly, at a constant (if not decreasing) rate. At this rate, 8000 years ago the earth's magnetism would have equaled that of a magnetic star, a highly unlikely occurrence. Also, if electric currents in the earth's core are responsible for the earth's magnetism, the heat generated by these currents 20,000 years ago would have dissolved the earth.


      3. FOSSIL RECORD
      Charles Darwin stated, in his Origin of Species, "The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."

      Now, 130 years and billions of fossils later, we can rightly reject the view of an incomplete fossil record or of one "connecting together all . . . forms of life by the finest graduated steps."

      Out of the millions of fossils in the world, not one transitional form has been found. All known species show up abruptly in the fossil record, without intermediate forms, thus contributing to the fact of special creation. Let's take a look at Archeopteryx, a fossil that some evolutionists claim to be transitional between reptile and bird.

      Archeopteryx is discussed in evolutionist Francis Hitching's book, The Neck of the Giraffe - Where Darwin Went Wrong. Hitching speaks on six aspects of Archeopteryx, following here.

      (The following six points are quoted from Luther Sunderland's book, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, pp. 74-75, the facts of which points he gathered from Hitching's book.)

      1. It had a long bony tail, like a reptile's.

      In the embryonic stage, some living birds have more tail vertebrae than Archeopteryx. They later fuse to become an upstanding bone called the pygostyle. The tail bone and feather arrangement on swans are very similar to those of Archeopteryx.

      One authority claims that there is no basic difference between the ancient and modern forms: the difference lies only in the fact that the caudal vertebrae are greatly prolonged. But this does not make a reptile.

      2. It had claws on its feet and on its feathered forelimbs.

      However, many living birds such as the hoatzin in South America, the touraco in Africa and the ostrich also have claws. In 1983, the British Museum of Natural History displayed numerous species within nine families of birds with claws on the wings.

      3. It had teeth.

      Modern birds do not have teeth but many ancient birds did, particularly those in the Mesozoic. There is no suggestion that these birds were transitional. The teeth do not show the connection of Archeopteryx with any other animal since every subclass of vertebrates has some with teeth and some without.

      4. It had a shallow breastbone.

      Various modern flying birds such as the hoatzin have similarly shallow breastbones, and this does not disqualify them from being classified as birds. And there are, of course, many species of nonflying birds, both living and extinct.

      Recent examination of Archeopteryx's feathers has shown that they are the same as the feathers of modern birds that are excellent fliers. Dr. Ostrom says that there is no question that they are the same as the feathers of modern birds. They are asymmetrical with a center shaft and parallel barbs like those of today's flying birds.

      5. Its bones were solid, not hollow, like a bird's.

      This idea has been refuted because the long bones of Archeopteryx are now known to be hollow.

      6. It predates the general arrival of birds by millions of years.

      This also has been refuted by recent paleontological discoveries. In 1977 a geologist from Brigham Young University, James A. Jensen, discovered in the Dry Mesa quarry of the Morrison formation in western Colorado a fossil of an unequivocal bird in Lower Jurassic rock.

      This deposit is dated as 60-million years older than the Upper Jurassic rock in which Archeopteryx was found. He first found the rear-leg femur and, later, the remainder of the skeleton.

      This was reported in Science News 24 September 1977. Professor John Ostrom commented, "It is obvious we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archeopteryx lived."

      And so it goes with the fossil that many textbooks set forth as the best example of a transitional form. No true intermediate fossils have been found.

      In a letter to Luther Sunderland, dated April 10, 1979, Dr. Colin Patterson, of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote:

      "...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?"

      Just think of it! Here is a man sitting amidst one of the greatest fossil collections ever and he knows of absolutely NO transitional fossils. So convincing I believe this quote to be that it will sum up this discussion on fossil evidence.


      4. EMBRYONIC RECAPITULATION
      Darwin said that embryological evidence was "second to none in importance." The idea of embryonic recapitulation, or the theory that higher life forms go through the previous evolutionary chain before birth, was popularized by Ernst Haeckel in 1866. It was later found that Haeckel forged the diagrams which he used is evidence for the theory.

      The main arguments for embryonic recapitulation are the supposed "gill slits" (left over from fish), "yolk sac" (left over from the reptile stage), and "tail" (from the monkeys) in the human embryo. The gill slits, so called, are never slits, nor do they ever function in respiration. They are actually four pairs of pharyngeal pouches: the first pair become germ-fighting organs; the second, the two middle ear canals; the third and fourth pairs become the important parathyroid and thymus glands.

      The yolk sac does not store food because the mother's body provides this to the embryo. In fact, the "yolk sac" is not a yolk sac at all, but its true function is to produce the first blood cells.

      The "tail" is just the tip of the spine extending beyond the muscles of the embryo. The end of this will eventually become the coccyx, which is instrumental in the ability to stand and sit as humans do.

      Also arguing against recapitulation is the fact that different higher life forms experience different stages in different orders, and often contrary to the assumed evolutionary order.


      5. PROBABILITY
      The science of probability has not been favorable to evolutionary theory, even with the theory's loose time restraints. Dr. James Coppedge, of the Center for Probability Research in Biology in California, made some amazing calculations. Dr. Coppedge

      "applied all the laws of probability studies to the possibility of a single cell coming into existence by chance. He considered in the same way a single protein molecule, and even a single gene. His discoveries are revolutionary. He computed a world in which the entire crust of the earth - all the oceans, all the atoms, and the whole crust were available. He then had these amino acids bind at a rate one and one-half trillion times faster than they do in nature. In computing the possibilities, he found that to provide a single protein molecule by chance combination would take 10, to the 262nd power, years." (That is, the number 1 followed by 262 zeros.) "To get a single cell - the single smallest living cell known to mankind - which is called the mycroplasm hominis H39, would take 10, to the 119,841st power, years. That means that if you took thin pieces of paper and wrote 1 and then wrote zeros after (it), you would fill up the entire known universe with paper before you could ever even write that number. That is how many years it would take to make one living cell, smaller than any human cell!"

      According to Emile Borel, a French scientist and expert in the area of probability, an event on the cosmic level with a probability of less than 1 out of 10, to the 50th power, will not happen. The probability of producing one human cell by chance is 10, to the 119,000 power.

      Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, was quoted in Nature magazine, November 12, 1981, as saying "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (evolution) is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."

      As one can readily see, here is yet one more test that evolution theory has flunked.


      6. SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
      The second law of thermodynamics states that although the total amount of energy remains constant, the amount of usable energy is constantly decreasing. This law can be seen in most everything. Where work is done, energy is expelled. That energy can never again be used. As usable energy decreases, decay increases. Herein lies the problem for evolution. If the natural trend is toward degeneration, then evolution is impossible, for it demands the betterment of organisms through mutation.

      Some try to sidestep this law by saying that it applies only to closed environments. They say the earth is an open environment, collecting energy from the sun. However, Dr. Duane Gish has put forth four conditions that must be met in order for complexity to be generated in an environment.

      1. The system must be an open system.
      2. An adequate external energy force must be available.
      3. The system must possess energy conversion mechanisms.
      4. A control mechanism must exist within the system for directing, maintaining and replicating these energy conversion mechanisms.
      The second law clearly presents another insurmountable barrier to evolutionary idealism.


      7. VESTIGIAL ORGANS
      Vestigial organs are supposed organs in the body which are useless, left over from evolutionary development. The following arguments for vestigial organs are based on those taken from the "Bible Science Newsletter," August 1989, p. 16.

      1. Just because we don't yet know the role of an organ does not mean it is useless and left over from previous stages of evolution.

      2. This view is plain false. In the 1800's, evolutionists listed 180 vestigial organs in the human body. The functions for all have now been found. Some of these were the pituitary gland (oversees skeletal growth), the thymus (an endocrine gland), the pineal gland (affects the development of the sex glands), the tonsils, and appendix (both now known to fight disease.)

      3. The fact that an organ must sometimes be removed does not make it vestigial.

      4. The fact that one can live without an organ (appendix, tonsils) does not make it vestigial. You can survive without an arm or a kidney but these are not considered vestigial.

      5. Organs are not vestigial based upon your need or use of them.

      6. According to evolution, if an organ has lost its value, it should, over time, vanish completely. There has been enough time to lose these "vestigial" organs, but we still have them.

      7. If organs do become useless, this would back up the second law of thermodynamics and the degenerative process, not evolution, which requires adaptation of organs for new purposes.

      8. Vestigial organs prove loss, not evolutionary progression. Evolution theory requires new organs forming for useful purposes, not "old ones" dying out.

      9. Evolutionists have, for the most part, given up the argument over vestigial organs.


      8. FOSSIL AND FOSSIL FUEL FORMATION
      Evolutionists like to tell us that at least thousands of years are needed to form the fossils and fuels (such as coal and oil) that we find today. However, objects must be buried rapidly in order to fossilize. This, bearing also in mind the billions of fossils and fossil fuels buried around the world, seems to indicate a worldwide catastrophe. None other than, you guessed it, Noah's flood.

      Ken Ham, director of the Australia-based Creation Science Foundation, presents some interesting facts in seminars which he gives. Oil can now be made in a few minutes in a laboratory. Black coal can also be formed at an astonishing rate. Ham also has in his overlay presentation a photograph of a fossilized miner's hat, about fifty years old. All that is necessary for fossilization is quick burial and the right conditions, not thousands of years.


      9. PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIA
      Seeing the problem of gradual evolution with the fossil record, and the obvious abrupt appearances of species, Drs. Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge have formed the theory of punctuated equilibria. Punctuated equilibria, is, by example, a bird giving birth to a mammal, thus leaving no transitional fossils in the geological record.

      Many top evolutionists disagree with this position. And punctuated equilibria has its problems, too. For instance, in the above case, of a bird bearing a mammal, another mammal of the same kind of the opposite sex must be born at the same approximate time in the same area in order for the new species to continue. The odds of just one organism appearing this way, let alone two fulfilling the circumstances above, are astronomical.


      10. HOMOLOGY/MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
      Homology is the similarity of structures between different types of organisms. Some have argued that these similarities are evidence of one common ancestor. However, as Sunderland points out, when the concentration of red blood cells is used, utilizing the ideas of homology, man is more closely related to frogs, fish, and birds than to sheep.

      But now, with the development of molecular biology we are able to make a comparison of the same cells in different species, which adds a whole new dimension to homology. Unfortunately, for the evolutionists, molecular biology does as all other evidences do: presents greater argument against evolution theory.

      In molecular biology, proteins of the same type in different organisms can be tested for difference in amino acid makeup. The figure resulting is converted into a percentage. The lower the percentage, the less difference there is between the proteins. Dr. Michael Denton, in experiments with Cytochrome C, a protein that converts food into energy, and hemoglobin, found the following.


         Cytochrome C Differences          Cytochrome C Differences

         Bacterium to Six Organisms        Silkmoth to Vertebrates
         to yeast . . . . . . . 69%        to lamprey . . . . .27%
         to wheat . . . . . . . 66%        to carp. . . . . . .25%
         to silkmoth. . . . . . 65%        to pigeon. . . . . .26%
         to tuna. . . . . . . . 65%        to turtle. . . . . .25%
         to pigeon. . . . . . . 64%        to horse . . . . . .30%
         to horse . . . . . . . 64%

         Cytochrome C Differences          Hemoglobin Differences

         Carp to Terrestrial Vertebrates   Lamprey to Other Vertebrates
         to bullfrog. . . . . . 13%        to human . . . . . .73%
         to turtle. . . . . . . 13%        to kangaroo. . . . .76%
         to chicken . . . . . . 14%        to chicken . . . . .78%
         to rabbit. . . . . . . 13%        to frog. . . . . . .76%
         to horse . . . . . . . 13%        to carp. . . . . . .75%

      Dr. Denton states, "There is not a trace at a molecular level of the traditional evolutionary series: fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal. Incredibly man is closer to lamprey than are fish." The evidence is clear; evolution is struck another hard blow!


      11. DATING METHODS
      Many of the radiometric dating methods used for determining the age of fossils are quite unreliable. Carbon-14 dating is usually sound within a few hundred years span of time. But there are exceptions to this. For example, a living mollusk was dated using the carbon-14 method. The readings said it had been dead for 3000 years.

      Lava rocks from a volcano in Hawaii which erupted in 1801 were tested, using the potassium-argon method. The readings showed them to be nearly 3 billion years old. Moon rocks were tested by various radiometric methods, yielding dates ranging from 700 million to 28 billion years.

      Dating methods such as potassium-argon, uranium-lead, and rubidium-strontium, are based on assumptions. These methods are based on chemical change (uranium to lead, etc.) where the parent material (ie., uranium) is converted to the daughter material (ie., lead) at a known rate, called a half-life. These methods cannot be trusted on the basis that too little is known. In order to come up with a correct date, you must know:

      1. how much of the parent material was in it at the start,
      2. how much of the daughter material was in it at the start, &
      3. if there has been some type of contamination since.
      In obtaining dates now, scientists assume the answers to or ignore these questions. The fact is that we cannot know how old a specimen is unless we were there when it was formed.


      I suppose scientists and science itself has to come up with something considering the huge budgets injected in to it by governments and individuals.

      1. JMcFarland profile image92
        JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I could only read your first reason before I burst out laughing and I couldn't get any further.  You do realize, don't you, that the Moondust argument is one that other christians are telling christians not to use because it makes them look stupid? 

        From answers in genesis - which is a CHRISTIAN APOLOGIST website.  You might want to check out the other arguments NOT to use.  It may help you out.

        http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-ans … e-dont-use

        Too Little Moon Dust

        Only a thin layer of dust covers the moon’s surface. However, this does not prove a young age for the moon. Before the Apollo lunar missions, a few scientists had predicted that a yards-thick layer of dust should have settled on the moon over billions of years.

        Those predictions got a lot of press, yet further satellite measurements of dust in space indicated a much smaller rate of accumulation than previously assumed. This does not mean the moon is billions of years old; modern scientists cannot know the rate of dust accumulation in the past or the amount of dust originally on the moon. Therefore moon dust cannot be used as an age indicator one way or the other.

      2. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Without having to go through all of your examples, this one shows well beyond a doubt the illiteracy of believers who have obviously read nothing outside their bible in the past 30 years.

        Don't worry, your grand kids will understand evolution.

        1. Silverspeeder profile image60
          Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The illiterate are people like you who don't question the evidence that blinkered scientists in their huge rush to disprove the god theory have come up with. Without fail some of their theories are quite laughable when you stand back and look at what they have decided what would have happened if the millionds of different conditions were right. And without doubt it is incomplete, as with the moon dust idea that you say has now become another thing they got wrong in the first place.
          The whole evolutionary road show depends on a huge improbable time line, one that even scientists themselves cant agree on, it also seems to come up with a new missing link every 20 yrs or so and this indicates and incomplete ancestory.
          The whole story of evolutionary theory is a contradictory one, an idea orchestrated by a bored traveller with a god complex 130 years ago.

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I have to disagree. Simply because I consider the militant atheist stance to be scientifically illiterate. Science does nothing but supply us with more and more information. Simply because there are those among us (on both sides) with an agenda we shouldn't belittle the efforts and great strides we have made in understanding our world. The agendas are obvious and ignored.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              lol Like Richard Dawkins?

          2. 0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Science simply looks for the truth and doesn't care about God. There are many scientist who believe in God but are able to separate truth form fiction.

            Moon dust? The mirrors placed on the moon some 40 or 50 or so years ago are just now beginning to develop dust build up hampering the deflectors. Just a few sprinkles.

          3. Zelkiiro profile image84
            Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            God is not a theory. God is a hypothesis, and a flawed one at that.

          4. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            lol Hilarious. Your faith based conspiracy theory has been noted and provided a chuckle. Yes, I do understand the evidence and the theory, but we know you don't based on your own words. You are criticizing that which you have no understanding, the scientifically illiterate to which this thread is aimed.



            But, we know you're being entirely dishonest in that you don't even understand the theories you refer, hence have nothing to say about them.



            But, they eventually got it right, some time ago, contrary to your post.



            That is a lie, scientists do agree.



            Not by a long shot. It is actually helping to complete our ancestry.



            Based on your comments, we can easily see a religious agenda in which you have decided to comment on theories you don't understand, so you regurgitate old and tired arguments that have no basis in fact, whatsoever.

          5. Paul Wingert profile image80
            Paul Wingertposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            @ Silverspeeder I only read the first few lines of your on going post about moon dust and other BS that wasted a lot of bandwidth. Oh, creation is NOT a theory. You need to look up the definition of a theory.Creation is a cute story made up by a group of superstitious Jewish nomads and sheep herders that never heard of an atom, thought the earth was flat and had no idea where the sun went every evening.

      3. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It may be time to get your information from other sources.

        http://s1.hubimg.com/u/8135044_f248.jpg


        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/8135045.jpg

      4. aka-dj profile image79
        aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        "‘There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know’. "  Thomas Chalkley

        Several people "only read the first paragraph" hmm

        Hmmm. I wonder why?

        What are they afraid of finding out?

        Nothing.

        They already know the flaws of evolution, it's outlandish claims and assertions, but "choose to ignore" them. It helps their cause not.

        If the argument were not fundamentally an issue of faith, there would be no point in arguing.

        It keeps people engaged. Three (+) yrs on this site, and the same stuff still keeps people talking.
        See! Even I got suckered in, though I spend very little time here these days.

        Have fun all! lol

        1. Paul Wingert profile image80
          Paul Wingertposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Flaws in evolution? Or do you mean flaws in the silly bible stories that poorly educated and disillusioned people mistaken as historical fact and must believe without question.

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I realize this will fall on deaf ears, but calling others poorly educated because they don't draw the same conclusions you do from the data available makes you look as if your own education is lacking. The dispute over evolution is larger than it needs to be simply because people, such as yourself and the 6000 year old earthers, insist on drawing conclusions that the data does not support. And then resort to calling names when the other side doesn't agree.

            There are unanswered questions. No one who doesn't possess an emotional attachment to the topic disputes this. This tactic of attempting to discredit anyone who questions accepted theories is pointless. Personalizing it by insisting those who disagree are uneducated or somehow illiterate (although an effective tactic) shows a high degree of insecurity in the fact that questions do, in fact, remain unanswered.

          2. aka-dj profile image79
            aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Evolution CLEARLY has a HUGE flaw.

            It is winding global populations downward.

            Depletion of populations both in number, and extinction of species.
            "Mother nature" has no new species evolving, nor replacing extinct species.

            Given the current trend, the whole diversity of life forms will dwindle to irreversible levels.
            It is probably beyond that point even now.

            http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/prog … on_crisis/

            I find it most fascinating that mass extinctions are RAPID, but emergence of new species, is, well, nonexistent. (Yes, yes, yes, I know, the "it's too gradual for us to observe" BS is the rote response to this).

            Next point. Who cares ? Why care? It's all pointless anyway.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The voices of the scientifically illiterate are fading rapidly although it would appear they want to go out with a bang instead of a whimper. smile

              1. aka-dj profile image79
                aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                We are indeed going out, but it will be in a flash.

                I feel for those left behind. It need not be that way. sad

                1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                  A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  We will all go on enjoying our world because we understand it rather than wallowing in ignorance and despising it.

          3. aka-dj profile image79
            aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            PS, Why bring the Bible into this thread? hmm

            I am responding to the op. Clearly not about Bible issue.

          4. 0
            Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Define poorly educated.

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Not properly educated?

              1. aka-dj profile image79
                aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Now I'm curious too.
                Define "not properly educated".

    3. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Ahhh   so many claims without any facts to base them on.
      Especially the claim that there is no debate.
      Sorry to bust your bubble, but there will always be a debate as long as there are people who actually use their minds to sort out fact from fiction.

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Where are your facts Brenda?

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The ball's not in my corner yet.
          I didn't make outlandish claims about evolution and the majority of Christians believing in bunk.
          It is up to the thread author to prove his claims.
          (Which are mostly wishful thinking on his part of course).

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The majority of Christians. Are you kidding me. Even the Pope when given the facts understood evolution.
            http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story … yukon.html

          2. Zelkiiro profile image84
            Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this
          3. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, that is exactly the type of things the last remaining group of scientifically illiterate folks would say. The claims have already been shown to be valid in one of the most successful scientific theories to date. Again, you're free to belong to that group, but your children won't be no matter how much you deny or reject it. smile

      2. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Sorry Brenda, there is only the scientifically illiterate to educate. If you wish to be one of them, that is your prerogative, but most certainly, your children's children will grow up in a world that understands it, and they will too, accept it. smile

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Aw now, don't be so negative.
          You, as a science-lover I assume,  should factor in the inheritance gene.   LOLOL.
          My kids may get drawn into some silly theories, etc., by some smooth-talkin' pseudo-scientist or forked tongue theorist,  for a while, but this Mom didn't raise no dummies. ha.  The search for truth, in religion and in natural life, has been exampled to them, and their aptitude of reasoning things out based on actual evidence and spiritual evidence is also most likely in their DNA.     So please don't worry about me and mine.   We're gonna be alright.

          1. Paul Wingert profile image80
            Paul Wingertposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            So you're going to lie to them.

            1. aka-dj profile image79
              aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Why do you care if she lies to her offspring?

              Look after your own.

            2. 0
              Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Of course not.
              Why would you even say that?  Are you lying to yours?
              There is much proof of the accuracy of the Bible's account of history.   While there is no proof at all for evolution, especially biological evolution.

          2. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The only negative aspect here is how some folks deny or reject facts.



            There's a joke there?



            Are you saying that not knowing anything about evolution but rejecting it out of hand is smart?



            Spiritual evidence in DNA? lol

    4. Ceegen profile image85
      Ceegenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Science is not a democracy, and you can't just vote on "facts" by saying everyone agrees that "this is right" or "that is wrong". It doesn't work like that. Science is about the observable world around you, what is physical, testable and demonstrable.

      The truth of the matter is, science has no idea how life happened. No one has observed new life coming into existence from nothing, life is only observed as coming from something that was already living. Changes within species happens, but to say life came from nothing, well that sounds a lot like either magic, or, a miracle to me.

      Natural selection can only select from what is available, and so natural selection as an explanation for origins of life itself is a folly one. You can't select from what isn't there, and life being selected from non-living matter is not natural. That's supernatural.

      Just sayin'.

      1. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        And, nowhere was that ever mentioned, those are YOUR words.



        Who says life comes from nothing? It appears to be YOU, again.



        Evolution never makes the claim for origins of life. Once again, those are YOUR words.

        1. Ceegen profile image85
          Ceegenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Every person I have read about which purports evolution as fact, also says that we somehow evolved from non-living matter. If that were so, wouldn't we see more life, and more abundantly? Why is it that so far as we know, we're the only living things in the universe? No alien life has contacted us claiming that they made us "long ago and far away", did they? Why would they if they did? What created the aliens, if that were true?

          Science runs into the same problem Christians do when trying to prove something like this. Since life only comes from life, what is life and where did it come from?

          But if evolution is true, then so too is the belief that if life happened here, then life happened elsewhere in the universe. It becomes the start of a spiritual journey, for those who at least recognize that there is some greater purpose or something in the universe, which is greater than the sum of its parts. So searching for extra-terrestrial life out in the great darkness of space, is really like a spiritual journey of sorts. Do they have religions? Do they have governments? Are they at war with one another?

          Our universe is finely tuned with observable effects which we've dubbed, as an example, the 'laws of physics'. The same laws which apply here on earth, apply anywhere else in the universe as well. The fact that gravity acts the same no matter where in the universe you are, indicates that the same criteria which dictates life here on earth, can also be seen to dictate where else in the universe life could be found.

          The implications of this is, however, that maybe there are spiritual laws which govern our existence as well as physical laws. But how would we know where to look, or even begin to search for answers, with regards to *spiritual laws*? For one, you have the problem of first asking, "what is truth"?

          Science even says that life is miraculous, because they are without answers, only theories which have no supporting experimental data. It's a miracle we even exist, given the circumstances of the hostile universe that we live in, and even hostile solar system. We could all be wiped out in an instant if we get too close to a black hole. You have no certainties of this breath being your last, because there are no certainties in this life, only death.

          So if you believe in evolution, but don't think that evolution answers the question of the origins of life, then where did life come from? Surely you have answers instead of ridicule?

          1. JMcFarland profile image92
            JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Once again, evolution does not address the origin of life.  You're talking about something completely different and don't seem to have a grasp on what evolution actually is.

            1. Ceegen profile image85
              Ceegenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              That life came from a single cell, which is the precursor for all life? Yes I know absolutely what evolution is.

              But for evolution to be true, you have to first admit where life originates from for the rest of it to be true. If life did come from a single cell, then maybe evolution is true; or, maybe God programmed everything's DNA to adapt to change? That is also a theory, on the same unprovable level that evolution is. You can't prove the first living cell is the cause of all that we see now, any more than I could prove that God created all plant and animal life.

              1. JMcFarland profile image92
                JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                That's untrue.  Evolution doesn't talk about where the single cell originated from.  That's a completely different theory.  Evolution is only the adaptation and change of existing life.  I still think that you're mixing the two theories and using them interchangeably, which is not the case.

                1. Silverspeeder profile image60
                  Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  So evolutionists have no ideas about where the simple form (which they believe everything evolved from) comes from then?

                  1. JMcFarland profile image92
                    JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    That's a separate field of study entirely.  I'm not sure why that's so hard to realize.

                2. Ceegen profile image85
                  Ceegenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  "That's untrue.  Evolution doesn't talk about where the single cell originated from."

                  Uhhh, Darwin was the one who posited the idea of life originating in a type of primordial nutrient-rich "soup" in earth's early history.. However, back then the study of biology was only beginning, and the prevalent theory on the structure of a cell was that it was a type of gelatinous material they couldn't identify.

                  Now, with electron microscopes, cells are vastly more complex than we first thought.

                  "That's a completely different theory."

                  So even evolutionists have denominations? Interesting.

                  "Evolution is only the adaptation and change of existing life.  I still think that you're mixing the two theories and using them interchangeably, which is not the case."

                  But the explanation for *all* life is based primarily on evolutionary thought, which, by the way... Is of "eastern" religious origins! The idea of reincarnation spawned evolution, which is the idea that we get better or more complex over time.

                  But to separate the fields of study like that, is just you trying to "protect" the theory of evolution, because clearly there are many unanswered questions with evolution -- Primarily, the origin of life itself.

                  As I said earlier, with the advent of the electron microscope and our advances in understanding DNA, things get vastly more complex. I'm not going to pretend to know all the finer details, but what I do know is that the complexity in the structure of a cell goes way above and beyond anything we as humans have ever dreamed of creating. Just one living cell is more complex than the entire functioning of a car or even jet, and the information contained in DNA makes scientists' heads dizzy with information overload.

                  I'm not big on coincidences, obviously. The very fact that DNA contains instructions for a living thing, is amazing in and of itself.

                  1. JMcFarland profile image92
                    JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I don't know what to tell you, dude.  Evolution is: 

                    ev·o·lu·tion 
                    /ˌevəˈlo͞oSHən/
                    Noun

                        The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the...
                        The gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form

                    Abiogenesis, physics, cosmology etc talk about the big bang theory, etc.  Not evolution.  You just don't care what the actual definition is, and you seem completely closed-minded to even attempting to understand it, so I'm not sure what the point of discussing it with you is when you won't even look at the definition and get your terms right - intentionally, no less.

                    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/m … eory.shtml

                    Misconception: “Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.”
                    Response: Evolutionary theory deals mainly with how life changed after its origin. Science does try to investigate how life started (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but these considerations are not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes.

              2. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Clearly you don't.


                No you don't.
                Perhaps not the first living cell, but perhaps the 64th billion.

                BTW, ever hear of Slime mold?
                "When food is abundant a slime mold exists as a single-celled organism, but when food is in short supply, slime molds congregate and start moving as a single body. In this state they are sensitive to airborne chemicals and can detect food sources. They can readily change the shape and function of parts and may form stalks that produce fruiting bodies, releasing countless spores, light enough to be carried on the wind or hitch a ride on passing animals."

                Imagine that, single-celled organisms combining and moving as a single body. Cool stuff.

                1. Ceegen profile image85
                  Ceegenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  "Clearly you don't.

                  No you don't.
                  Perhaps not the first living cell, but perhaps the 64th billion.

                  BTW, ever hear of Slime mold?
                  "When food is abundant a slime mold exists as a single-celled organism, but when food is in short supply, slime molds congregate and start moving as a single body. In this state they are sensitive to airborne chemicals and can detect food sources. They can readily change the shape and function of parts and may form stalks that produce fruiting bodies, releasing countless spores, light enough to be carried on the wind or hitch a ride on passing animals."

                  Imagine that, single-celled organisms combining and moving as a single body. Cool stuff."

                  Slime mold could just be that God programmed its DNA really well. But if you're just going to say I'm wrong or that I don't understand what I'm talking about, I have no reason to reply to that in kind, because it would be fruitless.

                  Instead, I'll just ask you a few questions: What is life? Are single-cells not "alive"? At what point is something "alive"?

              3. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                That is not evolution, so it is evident you do not know.



                No, there is no admittance to anything of the sort, it is entirely unrelated.



                Could you be anymore dishonest? Gods are not theories, they are fantasies.



                Evolution is a fact, your assertions are meaningless and irrelevant because you simply have no idea what you're talking about.

                1. Ceegen profile image85
                  Ceegenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  "Evolution is a fact, your assertions are meaningless and irrelevant because you simply have no idea what you're talking about."

                  Ahh yes, how could I forget. It's a "fact" because everyone thinks it is so? Yes life can adapt and change, but there are limits to what an organism can do. Life on this planet is very suited and specialized to live in specific environments, constrained by the programming in the DNA.

                  Did you know DNA contains instructions for when a cell "dies"? There are even error-correction functions in DNA, much like a few hard drives in a RAID configuration! DNA is quite literally the operating system of a cell that runs the hardware in the cell, because DNA by itself... Does absolutely nothing. It is only an information carrier; machine code.

                  Where did the information come from?

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    No, because facts reveal themselves as such.



                    Please explain to us in detail those limits?



                    That's like saying potholes form to fit the water contained within them.



                    Millions of years of evolution.

            2. aka-dj profile image79
              aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Are you one of those who believe that God created life, and then allowed evolution to sort the rest out?
              lol lol lol

              1. JMcFarland profile image92
                JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                no, i have no belief in a god.

          2. 0
            Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Evolution does not address the origins of life. Evolution addresses the adaptations and changes of life AFTER it was created. Science does not currently (to my knowledge, which, admittedly, is limited) have the answer to those questions and to my understanding atheists are not concerned with those origins. they are focused on living here and now and doing the best they can here in every moment

  2. Zelkiiro profile image84
    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago

    "B-But Genesis contradicts evolution, and the Bible is never wrong!"

    While the second clause has innumerable issues, my precious straw man, the first clause is similarly false as long as you read the story of Creation as the allegory that it is. If you have even the basest knowledge of what metaphor is, you'll find that evolution fits the Genesis 1 account like a glove, so long as you ignore the poor English translation(s).

  3. Jerami profile image77
    Jeramiposted 3 years ago

    The spirit of God moved across the face of the surface of the muk and goo (waters) and life abounds.

      That sounds like the bible agrees what location life origionally came.      And science agrees as to where it all started. 


         Now science  ask ... (?)     how and why?

    1. 0
      Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      This is going to be fun. smile ATM appears to want to look down on alternative views. We should accommodate smile

      You say science agrees as to where. It can also be argued that, minus the spirit floating over the water, they uncomfortably agree with more. The Cambrian explosion is hotly debated, probably because the sudden burst of life has to be explained. This 'how' has to be resolved in order to clamp down on the Intelligent Designers. Evolutionists have been scratching their heads on this one since Darwin's time.

      1. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        What alternative views?



        Not sure if you have kids, but they will understand. Not to worry, Emile.

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Honestly? I was attempting to give your thread a kick start. It appears to have worked. smile

          Thank me now, or later.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I'll do it right now.

            Thank you for showing me you're one of folks of whom the thread is aimed.

            The Cambrian "explosion" is not hotly debated, it is yet simply another example of the illiteracy of those "Intelligent Designers" who make that claim.

            Well spotted. smile

            1. 0
              Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              lol It is certainly hotly debated. You get very irritated when someone questions it. I've seen it hotly debated on Hub Pages frequently. Now, we could agree that one side of the debate lacks merit, but it is still debated. smile

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

                Gotta go with ATM here - while one side does indeed "hotly" declare that it is proof of God, the other treats it as an interesting anomaly.  Something not quite understood yet and worthy of investigation.  Nothing "hotly debated" except that the one side gets pretty hot that the other finds it interesting but not proof that species don't change.  I don't think it is even "debated" except as to what might have caused evolution to speed up during the period.

              2. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Or, more accurately, I laugh at yet another illiterate believer who doesn't understand it.



                The emotions generated by believers over their creationist fantasies does not equate to a "hotly debated" topic. lol

                1. 0
                  Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Let's clarify that post. Since it was in response to mine, are you calling me illiterate? Do you understand the definition of the word, illiterate? Because, seriously, you resemble that accusation at the moment.

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Refer back to the OP since you appear to have forgotten...

                    "The debate on Evolution is one between the scientifically literate and the scientific illiterate."

    2. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yes Jerami, it's all about trying to educate the last few illiterates. Don't worry, though, your grand kids will understand.

  4. aka-dj profile image79
    aka-djposted 3 years ago

    PS.  I am making it a point to teach my grandkids about all the flaws in evolution "evidence". just in case they want to make an informed decision.

    Those who teach the "truth" about evolution being 100% a "done deal", are just as biased as those who teach "fairy tales" as fact.

    I dare you to tell your kids what the flaws are, just as fanatically as you do the, so called, "proven".

    Bye. big_smile

    1. 0
      riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Interesting, especially considering that you teach a "fairy tale", the bible, as fact.

    2. Silverspeeder profile image60
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I think people get mixed up between scientific fact and scientific theory.

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I think people don't understand scientific theory or how it doesn't care about religion.

        1. Silverspeeder profile image60
          Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Of course it doesn't care about religion, its an opposition viewpoint.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No, it's not an opposition viewpoint. It's just searches for the truth and when they find it they try to prove it a lie. What the faithful think is irrelevant to the process.

            1. Silverspeeder profile image60
              Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Its an unproven incomplete theory that's in opposition to a religious viewpoint.
              They decide what their viewpoint is and then try to prove it using techniques they have designed to prove their point.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                No, they try to disprove it, you clearly don't understand how science worlds. And so what if it's in opposition to your religious viewpoint. The universe is billions of years old, you better change your religious views if you think the bible is your only source of knowledge you are ignoring the truth.

                1. Silverspeeder profile image60
                  Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  What scientist works to disprove his theory? In the pursuit to prove the theory he may disprove it, however there maybe other scientist who work to disprove his theory.
                  The Large Hadron Collider was built to allow physicists to test the predictions of different theories of particle physics and high-energy physics.
                  Science is complicated so if you profess to know everything about science why are you not a scientist?
                  If indeed you are a scientist can you tell what the next evolutionary step is, natural progression and all that.
                  Mind you i suppose you think i will be to thick to understand it.

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

                    "What scientist works to disprove his theory?"

                    Every honest one.  They know that others are going to do their absolute best to disprove it; if the theorist does his best to disprove his own theory and can't, hopefully no one else can either.  It's how the peer review process works.

                  2. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You clearly have been lied to about how science works.

                    Evolution is always at play. Light skin is the adaptation/evolution from being exposed to less sun. The farther north you go the lighter the skin colour. The need for our bodies to extract vitamin D from less sunlight has resulted in lighter skin.

                    I've read recently that humans are becoming taller and better looking and of course smarter. The IQ tests have been adapting to this change for decades.

              2. JMcFarland profile image92
                JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                This whole statement proves completely that you are unaware of the scientific method and you are clueless about how science works - so what's the point of discussing science with you when do aren't even aware of the process it entails.

        2. jstfishinman profile image77
          jstfishinmanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Dr. Richard Lewontin, the Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology at Harvard University, put it like this: "It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door" (Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28).

          1. Silverspeeder profile image60
            Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Scientists discrediting other scientists is not allowed, scientists can only discredit those with alternative beliefs.
            While evidence of design must be discredited at all costs scientist are able to undertake evidence design so that it fits their agenda.

          2. 0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            That's right, because they are looking for the truth. Do you want to back to the middle ages?

    3. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      But, they'll just laugh at you (or pity) and anyone else who makes ridiculous statements about that which they have no understanding.

      1. aka-dj profile image79
        aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You might be laughing, but they won't be.

      2. 0
        Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Welcome back, ATM.. Been kinda quiet without ya!

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I've been golfing, the weather has been superb. Cheers.

          1. 0
            Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Good to see you back and injecting your unique perspective in the forums.

  5. jstfishinman profile image77
    jstfishinmanposted 3 years ago

    Radman, I would suggest you get on the internet and look up Variable Speed of Light. There are proven studies being written in scientific journals as we speak. in these tests they have not only had light go faster than its " constant speed of light" but they have also been able to stop light. This throws out Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and changes 100 yrs. of science, but cuts considerably the age of the universe and earth. This makes possibility of evolution, which all ready has astronomical odds against it, impossible. Science debating science I love it, if it brings us to a clearer understanding of facts.

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Call me when it's accepted by the majority of physicists.

      1. aka-dj profile image79
        aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The "majority" rarely ever make quantum leaps into any discipline.

        In overwhelming number of cases, it's an individual, or a minuscule group that make the most startling advancements/discoveries.

        If you wait for the majority to accept it, you will have missed the boat, by along shot.

        I see you are a man of faith. A follower, and NOT a leader in your own right. big_smile

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yea, a leader like the IDers or the Creationists? People have been trying to prove Einstein wrong for years now and his math has help up so far. Pretty amazing isn't it. The one thing he thought he'd blundered on turned out to be right. Remember a while back when they thought they were making neutrinos go faster than light?

          1. aka-dj profile image79
            aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I don't see IDers, or creationists trying to prove Einstein wrong.

            Didn't you say earlier that all theories are (supposed to be) scrutinised, tested, and if falsified, another method must be attempted?

            If a new discovery challenges a currently held concept, what difference does it make which camp it comes from?
            Or is that your objection? It wasn't evolutionists that made the discovery?

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              That's because they have no idea what he was talking about or how his math affected their beliefs.

              If they hold up to scrutiny we will here about it.

              1. aka-dj profile image79
                aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Looks to me you are a very prejudiced person.

                Now you are saying that ID proponents are incapable of mathematics, or understanding natural laws.

                That's weird.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Watch who you call prejudice. That can look like a personal attack.

                  I thought it was weird you don't understand, perhaps not.

            2. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              But, the IDers belong to the same scientifically illiterate group of folks who deny or reject facts, just like those who deny or reject Relativity.

    2. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Those who actually understand how light works and how relativity works also understand Einsteins Theory of Relativity was not thrown out at all, quite the contrary. The scientifically illiterate might agree with you, though.

      1. aka-dj profile image79
        aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I see you know more than those who have made the discovery.

        Doesn't surprise me, though.

        The world still has a lot of people who are either full of themselves, or are legends in their own lunchtimes.

        Interesting how, the speed of light was calculated in 1676. No computers. People were no educated.
        Yet, their work has not been questioned.
        NOW, with all the knowledge, and technology, someone challenge the status quo, dares to publish
        their findings and science buffs are trying to discredit it.

        Good to see real harmony and unity in the camp. lol

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I'd like to understand something. Why, in your opinion, is some knowledge perceived as a threat by the religious community? I realize some use facts to challenge the idea of God, but I don't see the problem being with those who challenge. I see the religious perceiving the information itself as a challenge. Do you think, if current conclusions hold firm once all facts are in that this will prove the nonexistence of God, by your understanding of the term?

        2. Disappearinghead profile image88
          Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Of course their work on the speed of light has been questioned. It has been verified and fine tuned as we have advanced technologically.

          What creationists however fail to provide is any verification for their ideas. It seems rather bizarre that they go after evolution like a pit bull, looking for the tiniest chink in the armour in order to bring the whole thing crashing down yet they singularly fail to provide any credible evidence for creationism as if it does not require any degree of objective inquiry. Why do you think that is?

          Please tell me what is the testable evidence for creation ex-nihilo? What is the evidence Eve was created from Adam's rib or that they existed in the first place. By the way if you accept the literal account of Eve's creation, then you must also accept she was a clone of Adam, yet women have X-X chromosomes and males X-Y. So how do you account for this contradiction?

          1. Zelkiiro profile image84
            Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Goddunnit.

            1. Disappearinghead profile image88
              Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I just asked my wife to confirm the chromosomal differences and she read out a piece she found on a creationist website. Apparently when God created Eve he swapped out her chromosomes. ??? But that's not what the bible says. A literal reading of Genesis says nothing about Eve's genetic manipulation so it can't be true. The creationists are making this stuff up with absolutely no foundation on the Word of God. Ironic that they accuse Evolutionists for making shit up because it's not found in Genesis. I* guess they don't think that the same standards of integrity apply to them.

          2. aka-dj profile image79
            aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Likewise, what's the evidence of abiogenesis?

            What's the evidence of the Big Bang?

            What's the real evidence for macro evolution?

            1. JMcFarland profile image92
              JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this
              1. aka-dj profile image79
                aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                What gets me is how emphatically you guys swallow, and regurgitate this stuff.

                All these articles are full of words like, might, hypothesis, theory, could, probably, and phrases like, could have, may have, assume to have, etc.

                So, based your best guess, we all came from a single life form, that may probably arose, we have no idea how. In essence then I'm related to a bacteria, a lizard, a tree, a bird, whale, mosquito, ad infinitum.

                All this innumerable variety, and not to mention the myriad of species no extinct, ALL came about in such a short time as a few mere billion years.

                And I'm accused of delusion. lol lol lol

                1. Disappearinghead profile image88
                  Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  "What gets me is how emphatically you guys swallow, and regurgitate this stuff."

                  We could say the same about you regarding creationism, a theory that has no scientific merit whatsoever.

                2. 0
                  riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Says so, by somebody who admitted just that!!


                  Lack of intelligence(or the unwillingness to use it) is delusion??

                3. A Troubled Man profile image60
                  A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  No, dishonesty.

                  1. aka-dj profile image79
                    aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Oh, OK.
                    It used to be delusion, by your colleagues a year or so back.

                    Again, your accusation doesn't make it so, nor does it prove anything about your honesty.

                    Perhaps you ought to look at the evidence with an open mind.
                    I don't hold much hope of that happening any time soon.

            2. Disappearinghead profile image88
              Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              As JMF has posted, we could spend the whole day posting links from esteemed scientists in support of evolution, but just where are your links?

            3. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              By asking those questions, you admit to knowing nothing about them. So, why are you rejecting things you don't understand?

              Isn't that dishonest? smile

        3. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That's silly, I simply understand what they understand.



          That's nice, do you have a point?



          Yes, some people were educated, that's how they figured out how to measure the speed of light.



          Yes, there work has been questioned, to the point where we now have a very accurate measurement for the speed of light.



          What new baloney are you trying to feed us? What findings? Explain yourself.

  6. jstfishinman profile image77
    jstfishinmanposted 3 years ago

    I am just passing along latest findings from New Zealand and Australia, but the Variable Speed of light has been proven. In fact this group of scientists stopped light. I has all ready been verified by scientific community. All calculations figured with light as a constant will have to be recalculated. 100 years of data.

    1. aka-dj profile image79
      aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you. smile

  7. aka-dj profile image79
    aka-djposted 3 years ago

    For all you who absolutely understand evolution, I have someone who REALLY, TRULY, wants you to explain it to him

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellig … evolution/

    Please let us all know how you go.
    I'm curious.

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      In the "Intelligent Design" section?
      In a more recent talk, entitled, Nanotech and Jesus Christ?

      And you are looking for a secular scientist?

      Curiously, I can't find his full name. And one of the link with his partial name is entitled "Layman’s Reflections on Evolution and Creation. An Insider’s View of the Academy"

      Layman's?

    2. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      And, the reason why you don't bother to take the time to understand evolution is ...?

      1. aka-dj profile image79
        aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It's because there's nothing to understand.

        It's a faith based system, telling everyone evolution happened.

        the masses believe it, and here we are, arguing over two different faith based world views.
        That part is easy to understand!

        I know it bothers you that I don't believe science fiction, as fact, but I can't bring myself to say, I'm sorry about that.

        1. Disappearinghead profile image88
          Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Why do you say evolution is faith based when there is so much independent objective  observation to support it. Is it because you cannot get past the "It's only a theory" old chestnut?

          There is certainly more to your position than you let on. I can't believe you ignore the scientific papers on evolution because you have more interesting things to do like tidying the house or doing the dishes. What drives your position? Is there something fundamentally problematic with evolution as a concept that you cannot reconcile with your faith?

        2. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You wouldn't know that if you never made the attempt. Again, that is just being dishonest.



          It's science and is based on facts and evidence. Those who understand evolution know that.



          There is no argument, there are only those who have yet to become literate in science.



          Don't flatter yourself. No one here cares that you are scientifically illiterate, most care more about the fact you're being totally dishonest, and that is what you should actually be apologizing.

      2. aka-dj profile image79
        aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Because evolution is false.

        I thought by now you knew that.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Admitting that you will never take the time to understand evolution and then calling it false because it jeopardizes your religious beliefs only shows that your religion teaches you to be dishonest.

          I thought by now you knew that.

          1. aka-dj profile image79
            aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Just how much time am I supposed to take?

            I've heard, seen and read enough to be convinced it's science fiction.

            If that bothers you, I'm not sorry.

            As for jeopardising my faith (NOT religion), what a joke. I have not seen one shred of evidence to "rattle my cage".
            You have no idea what my convictions are, where they came from, and why I still hold to them.

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              What evidence would it take?

              1. psycheskinner profile image79
                psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I am not even sure why evolution should threaten someones faith.  Unless they are *very* literal about genesis.  IMHO God (should He exist) would have inspired a Bible that explained things to the people of that time in their own frame of reference.  If he was writing a Bible now it would probably have a chapter on evolution.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The truth is IMHO the writers had no knowledge of the universe that wasn't available at the time. They were writing for a very specific reason to a very specific people. The Quran is no different, however the Quran is a little more specific and as such it's errors are more evident.

            2. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              That depends, you actually have to start, first.



              You have not read anything about evolution, that is obvious to anyone who has.



              The details of your conviction are irrelevant to the fact you are denying out of hand that which you have no understanding. You have already revealed your creationist position, so your convictions are already out in the open.

        2. Disappearinghead profile image88
          Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I cannot take you seriously anymore. Despite everything that is presented to you, despite individuals here asking you to clarify exactly why you refuse to even look at evolution, we just get flat statements such as 'evolution is false'. This is not what would be expected of someone thinking for themselves.

          1. aka-dj profile image79
            aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Being taken seriously is not my problem.

            When I present serious comments, they are not taken seriously, so nothing changes.

            None of you have ever explained evolution.
            I suggest, that's because none of you ACTUALLy understand it either.

            Anyone can make blanket statements like, adaptation and mutation over billions of years, and voila, here we are.

            That just doesn't cut it!

            To me, that sounds exactly like, "God made everything. No evolution required" sounds to you.

            So, if that makes me a NON critical thinker, so be it.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              We are not here to teach you scientific theories, it is YOUR responsibility to learn on your own. Many have already provided links, but you have refused to read them.

              1. psycheskinner profile image79
                psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Not that it is difficult really.

                Mutation causes living things to vary genetically
                Variable genetics causes variable performance in the environment
                Those that perform better in the environment have more offspring that perpetuate their genes
                Thus over time the species become adapted to their environment

                Everything else is specific examples and corollaries.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  So interesting that it can be explained in many ways and examples can be given, but because some think in conflicts with what was written thousands of years ago they dismiss it.

              2. aka-dj profile image79
                aka-djposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You seem to know so much.

                Do you ever admit to getting anything wrong?

                1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                  A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  What does that have to do with evolutionary theory and the fact you refuse to understand it?

    3. 0
      riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You can show some of his own post as explanation,
      "I understand that if I take Nature’s tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there,"(from the link you provided where he acknowledge nature can make molecules)
      [from his website]
      "From what I can see, microevolution is a fact; we see it all around us regarding small changes within a species, and biologists demonstrate this procedure in their labs on a daily basis. Hence, there is no argument regarding microevolution. The core of the debate for me, therefore, is the extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution"
      "I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there, in my opinion. So I prefer to be free of that ID label"
      He agree to micro evolution and  what he says is that he cannot understand macroevolution[not evolution].
      So tell him that saying that 'microevolution is a fact but I can't understand macroevolution', is like saying "I know how to go from Baltimore to Philadelphia or Philadelphia to New York, but I don't know how to go from Baltimore to New York".
      But when will you be asking a teacher about drugs(instead of a chemist)?

 
working