(Vanity) Evolution the Lie

Creationist

[Creationist]

The Theory of Evolution is a wound upon society inflicted by proclaimed erudite men. This festering wound is easily transmitted. It is spread into almost every thing children read at public school; fictional books, geography, biology ECT. ECT.. It is portrayed by Hollywood This travesty is supported by our tax dollars and is never corrected when proved wrong, it is destroying our society with its Godless belief. It will be said that they can not afford new book, well just rip out the pages that are incorrect or mark them out with a permanent marker.

This hypothesis has been proved incorrect at every turn. Even the author of the revolution or “god” to the hardened believer, Darwin, had doubts in his belief. Darwin expected the future to find factual evidence in support of this miraculous idea. Over 150 years later still no proof. Why in fact there is more evidence to the contrary discovered by scientist who do not accept Jesus. The mountain of evidence against the theory is so compelling, yet those who can not or will not except a Supernatural power as the Creator of it all continue to make up hypothesis’s that require supernatural power to make it happen.

Evolution can not happen, changing from one species to another. They will show “microevolution,” really adaptation or variation as evidence. This is not so because there is not a new species, they are still roses, horses, dogs, cats, corn, ECT. ECT.. What are the supposed mechanisms of evolution; mutations and natural selection. Well natural selection can not do it and it should really be called random selection. Natural selection only selects at random, it takes intelligence to select a particular one. Random acts would almost never pick the exact correct sequence. Mathematicians will tell you random selection is chaotic and would never create intelligent organization. Mutations can not do it. Mutation are 99.9% harmful to the organism. What does not kill it or make it sterile makes it weaker and less likely to survive. If by chance it does, the DNA stasis will act upon the organism and if it has offspring they will revert back to the original within a generation or two.

The only way is for the “Hopeful Monsters” that Goldschmidt dreamt up. Millions of mutations happening at once about every 50,000 years, beneficial, happening to 2 males and 2 females in a close proximity each pair giving birth to the exact same kind of new species one male and one female. What that means folks is one breeding pair of lizards gave birth to a male chicken and within a mile or less another breeding pair of lizards gave birth to a female chicken, both with the right organs to breed and continue the new species. Whew! if that is not a faith based belief then what is. When is the next 50,000 years up?

Though the theory in general does not claim origins but it is in text books, Chemical evolution. Chemical evolution is a proposed process which does not exist today ( therefore it is not science and is a religious belief ) in which a reducing atmosphere ( no evidence in the rocks for this ) existed and rain fell upon rocks and created a chemical soup in our oceans. Lighting struck a puddle and life appeared with all the complexity of DNA and RNA installed. Stanley Miller performed an experiment in a controlled environment in which he created simple amino acids both D and L (left and right handed). Every type of amino acid in animals is left handed, no animal or man could live with right handed (D) in them. Every time amino acids are synthesized in a laboratory they create equal amount of left and right. If it can not be done in a controlled atmosphere with billions of dollars, how can random actions ever be expected to do it.

Evidence for evolution is just not there. The fossil record shows no evidence of transitional forms. There is nothing in the Precambrian that supports lower life forms evolving into the Cambrian Explosion. Evolutionist can not explain why there is a explosion of complex organisms in the Cambrian layer. This layer of evidence is condescending to their theory and they do not wish to acknowledge it as so. The slow processes of today could not create the sedimentary rock layers we see in the geology. The fossil layers the coal fields the sedimentary rock are all best explained by the global flood of Noah’s time.

Evolution has no proof, only conjecture believed by millions. Excepted by these millions because they are told by the government funded educated people of self proclaimed expertise. As the Bible says and how the Super rich and high up government official believe we are sheep, cattle to the latter, following believing expecting our leaders to tell us and teach us the truth. This is not going to happen, there is an agenda to this theory, it is to undermine God’s authority and to make people believe they are nothing more than animals. You teach then they are animals and they will act like them just look at how much the world has changed in the past 70 or so years due to the mandated teaching of this godless theory.

Every day more is discovered and science tries to explain it with their complex naturalistic ideals that defy the laws of nature and physics. When the answer is so simple God whose name is Jesus Created it all in six literal 24 hour days, and he did not use evolution anywhere in his process.

[RightWhale]

a person who is told what to think

They don't even tell us what history is, or morals, or ethics, or evolution. We have to figure these things out for ourselves.

[HitmanLV]

One doesn't inexorably follow the other. A person can be wholly accepting of maco evolution, for example, and very much against abortion.

You're entitled to your opinion, but somehow branding evolution as a liberal view, and anti-evolution as a conservative view, doesn't hold water. It's not a political construct in any event.

[RightWhale]

the theory of revolution

Dr Michio Kaku was talking some today about Copernicus' calendar and how it wasn't so accurate after all, which let a person choose whether to go along with de Revolutionibus or not. There was little to choose between that and the epicycles at that point, although the 'least read book' was actually widely read and minutely analyzed as soon as it was published.

[jimt]

No it was 6000 years ago.

Ok...

If the argument is "God said, I believe it, and that settles it !" there's nothing much for the rest of us to say.

But...did God create the world with overwhelming evidence of billions of years of history as a gigantic hoax ?

Methinks not.

[LtdGovt]

This lie is propagated to make a explanation for science, as they are to logical to except the fact of a God

Science is not about supernatural explanations. It would be easy to say: why does an apple fall down? Why does the world exist? Because God said it should! But that doesn't explain anything.

I know you want science to validate your faith, but it doesn't work that way.

[LtdGovt]

But...did God create the world with overwhelming evidence of billions of years of history as a gigantic hoax ?

Absolutely! He wanted to know what humans would believe their own eyes, over what God wanted them to believe.

[Creationist]

A new car has the appearance of age, you only know it is not that old because of the sticker.

The overwhelming evidence you proclaim is what has been told, shown (idiot box called TV), and written as fact. If you except the word of man which is fallible as infallible fact then yes the evidence is overwhelming.

[grey_whiskers]

The TOE requires ever changing hypothesis's to fit the destruction of the last hypothesis.

I vote for a new Icon to accompany the Flying Spaghetti Monster..."The TOE":

Seriously, Creationist...have you actually taken a college level science class?

And that is not meant as an insult. It is meant seriously.

There are certain specific methods which are used in science in an attempt to figure out, as best one can, how things work.

From the Hugo-award-winning(+) Science Made Stupid:

The point is, if a hypothesis is shown to have flaws, it is not always thrown out wholesale; sometimes it is modified in order to better fit what is seen.

This has always been part of the way science is done, and those who are practitioners accept that.(*)

What it sounds like is bugging you is that proponents of evolution come across as shouting "Evolution is FACT!!!" and then go around and jigger things behind the scene and expect nobody to notice.

Is that close enough to what you are saying?

Cheers!

(+) The Hugo is for Science Fiction. Science Made Stupid is a screamingly funny satire, you might like it; it skewers everybody.

(*)The difference is that for large periods of human history, people did not always bother to try out ideas to see if they really worked, truth was by consensus, or by dorm room bull session. Even among the great classical non-monotheistic civilizations. For example, try reading a translation of Aristotle's De Caelo. It basically has the same physics as a Road Runner cartoon.

[Creationist]

Science does validate my faith. Science is a real thing.
Science tries to explain extinction as a process of evolution. Extinction is extinction and not a proof of anything except life and death.

The Theory of Evolution is like the history of England unique and unrepeatable, therefore it is not science but a faith based belief boarding on the brink of religion.

Science does not validate evolution, every discovery proves contrary and requires new untestable theories to keep the faith alive.

[Pox]

Science does not validate evolution, every discovery proves contrary and requires new untestable theories to keep the faith alive.

Nonsense.

Paging Captain Hyperbole.

Everyone is entitled to believe what they please, be it evolution or religion. Absolute proclamations that are demonstrably incorrect such as yours does not help your argument.

[grey_whiskers]

Dr Michio Kaku was talking some today about Copernicus' calendar and how it wasn't so accurate after all, which let a person choose whether to go along with de Revolutionibus or not. There was little to choose between that and the epicycles at that point, although the 'least read book' was actually widely read and minutely analyzed as soon as it was published.

Fascinating.

I have been meaning to get ahold of a copy of C.S. Lewis' Discarded Image on that subject, but haven't done so yet.

And there are analogies to the Bohr atom vs. quantum, or IIRC Mendel, err, um, massaging his data to better fit simple laws.

Perhaps one should re-visit The Structure of Scientific Revolutions to suggest a visionary who doesn't let minor flaws get in the way of a good theory.

The clue to genius would be knowing when discrepancies were irrelevant and when discrepancies signaled a serious flaw in a theory...

Cheers!

[RightWhale]

the history of England unique and unrepeatable

The history of England might be unique, but it is different for each and every historian. What is history?

[LtdGovt]

You can collect enough empircal evidence to be 99.9% certain that there has been macro-evolution. You can't have mathematical certainty, like you don't have absolute certainty with many sciences. Examples are sociology, political science, psychology (the psychoanalytic approach).

[Coyoteman]

Science does not validate evolution, every discovery proves contrary and requires new untestable theories to keep the faith alive.

That is the way it may appear when your only source of information on science and evolution is creationist websites.

Try some of these journals to see what evolution and science are really doing (this is a very partial list). Beware; these journals will provide you with accurate information for a change:

American Journal of Human Biology
American Journal of Human Genetics
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
The Anatomical Record Part A
Annals of Human Biology
Annals of Human Genetics
Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics
Anthropological Science
Anthropologie
L' Anthropologie
Archaeometry
Behavior Genetics
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
Biological Psychology
Biology and Philosophy
BMC Evolutionary Biology
Current Anthropology
Current Biology
Economics and Human Biology
Ethnic and Racial Studies
European Journal of Human Genetics
Evolution and Human Behavior
Evolutionary Anthropology
Forensic Science International
Gene
Genetical Research
Genetics
Genome Research
Heredity
Homo
Human Biology
Human Heredity
Human Genetics
Human Genomics
Human Molecular Genetics
Human Mutation
International Journal of Osteoarchaeology
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
Journal of Archaeological Science
Journal of Biosocial Science
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
Journal of Human Evolution
Journal of Human Genetics
Journal of Molecular Evolution
Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute
Molecular Biology and Evolution
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
Nature
Nature Genetics
Nature Reviews Genetics
PLoS Biology
PLoS Genetics
Proceedings of The Royal Society: Biological Sciences
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Russian Journal of Genetics
Science
Trends in Genetics

[RightWhale]

you don't have absolute certainty with many sciences

Not even physics or cosmology, about the hardest of hard sciences. For example, Einstein's Theory of Relativity allows calculation of the charactistics of black holes to 0.1%, which is not total certainty. Newton's theory of gravity allowed calculation of observed effect to a part in ten million, which is also not total certainty. The day they reach certainty to as many decimals as everybody wants, then they will have total certainty, but this does not appear to be happening anytime soon.

[sbhitchc]

What I find very interesting is that so many evolutionists do not have the courage of their convictions and are still willing to call themselves Christians.

It is very easy to prove that a virgin birth is impossible.
It is very easy to prove that a person can not be raised from the dead after three days; especially around 50AD.

Why don't they attack the easy stuff and prove the entire Bible to be a fable? But if Christ was born from a virgin and was raised from the dead after three days, the young earth theory would seem not beyond the realm of belief.

[grey_whiskers]

The day they reach certainty to as many decimals as everybody wants, then they will have total certainty, but this does not appear to be happening anytime soon.

Heisenberg is deeply saddened.

Cheers!

[RightWhale]

Many religions claim virgin birth. This is not unique to Christianity. The moslems even now have a considerable number of virgin births all the time.

[Pox]

With our current technology, Heisenberg still has a valid point.

Perhaps a few hundred years down the road, with significant technological advances, we will be able to shed this uncertainty principle as archaic.

[sbhitchc]

That might be true but how could an evolutionist claim to believe it?