Evolution false?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bigman2232

Well-Known Member
#61
Only if you accept on faith, the theory of evolution, do you accept as 'fact' that apes and humans have a common ancestor. Nobody knows how humans came to be here but scientific evidence dictates that evolution is not the likely cause.

Actually there is evidence of humans existing millions of years ago. In the case of this example:

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v1i5n.htm

The 'indistinguishable from modern humans footprints' are found in the same rocks as our 'ancestors'. The rocks themselves are dated at 3.6 million years. Even if the dating is wrong, the fact that our 'ancestors' co-existed with us seems to be highly problematic for the theory of evolution!

The 'exact figure' does 'often change' so it would be foolish to say that something is 'known'.

Who knows where they came from? Perhaps they were created? Even if there were no -known- explanations that does mean that they 'must have evolved' as you assume.

The rest of your post rests upon the assumption that one species -can- evolve into another, this is simply not true, as has been well established:

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v3i9f.htm

As the above article makes clear there are well-known and well-understood limits to the genetic variation within any species gene-pool. It simply wont extend to the evolution of a new species as this would require -new- genetic information.


"And so on, and so on..." ..until what? Something 'sprung up from the ground' ?

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v11i9e.htm
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v2i12r.htm

Spontaneous generation is a facet of evolutionary theory (if they're being honest) and has been falsified. As you dont accept that something can 'magically spring up' as is required by evolutionary theory, no matter how far back you push this event, how do you get the ball rolling as it were?
I'm sorry but it doesn't matter how many sites, articles or whatever you want to reference, you really need to learn what science and the associated definitions involved in science are. I took an evolution course and 50% of our time was spent clarifying the definitions used. Terms like theory, fact, evidence, science, species and so on mean very different things in science than in normal everyday speech. I think that is the biggest part to trying to help people understand. Scientific fact is not the same thing as everyday facts.

In all honesty, no person who actually understands evolution theory would ever accept that spontaneous generation is a facet of it.

Another HUGE point people need to realize is that evolution is not used to explain where life came from. It is a process by which original life has changed (or to use the more accurate term, mutated) to form a new branch of life. This is often called a new species but what determines one species from another is still being argued in the scientific community. I.e. Chimps and humans are ~98-99% genetically related but considered two separate species, whereas other animals can be even less related but considered the same species.

I think the reality is that most people just won't understand unless they learn for themselves the teachings in biology, genetics, biochemistry, cell biology, evolution and learn what it is to work in science.

And that is why as a whole, humans are doomed.

P.S. If you talk to a real scientist and not some paid for hack, they will completely agree that science does require faith, as does everything we do in life, but that that is not enough alone. Science never stops trying to advance/disprove theories.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bigman2232

Well-Known Member
#62
I’ve never looked into the theory of evolution so this is probably a dumb question.

I perceive a three-dimensional world through my five physical senses.

This world keeps changing second by second, so we have the concept of time in order to make sense of it.

Time is a measure of change, and according to what I have read here, change is evolution.

So what was going on before change?

And at what time did the world begin if there was no time?

*

Yes, intelligent people always like to win. And when there are winners there are losers. And when there are losers there is no peace.
Sorry no one has given you an answer yet, I just read your post now, so here's what I have come to an answer for these questions.

There has always been change. Ever since the first moment of existence of the universe or whatever you want to term it, it has been changing. This idea is encompassed in the theory of thermodynamics in which the entropy of the universe is always increasing, becoming more chaotic.

We don't know when the world first began. As you said time is simply something human beings have created for our own understanding and to give us some idea of order to the chaos.

As for evolution, yes it does involve change but it is a very specific kind of change involving genes, mutations and heritability. And as I have said in another post, evolution is a theory to explain how life has reached the point it has reached. It is not meant to answer how existence first began.

That's all I'll say now but I'll check back if you have more questions and I'll try to answer them as well as I can.
 

protonaut

Well-Known Member
#63
So what was going on before change?

And at what time did the world begin if there was no time?
I don't see the purpose of applying time-dependent terms to a hypothetically timeless context. I think the fundamental problem with a lot of discussions is that many humans aren't satisfied with the reality that we're not designed to comprehend much as human beings - many of us are more focused on obtaining a sense of 'closure' than uncovering useful information in small, careful steps. It might interest you to look into some theories on cyclical time. Such theories usually suggest that instead of trying to mark an arbitrary beginning or end to the universe, we consider the view that time (and the universe) is eternal. These are just a few humble thoughts for consideration, I admit I'm not very knowledgeable on these subjects nor would I pretend to be.

In all honesty, I would actually prefer to see humanity focusing more energy on matters pertaining directly to our immediate survival (solutions for poverty, disease, environmental concerns, social problems, etc.) rather than arguing about matters which are most likely far beyond our limited scope as human beings. It's not a problem in and of itself, though it becomes counter-productive when a difference of opinions leads to segregation and spiritual division in social communities, and (on a larger scale) religious wars.

Even though I admittedly disagree with a lot of what was said in this thread, I ultimately respect the rights of others to defend their own beliefs. I'd like to thank everyone here for contributing their personal thoughts, I've honestly enjoyed reading them. I would also like to challenge people to make a greater effort in remaining respectful - to consider areas where differing parties could compromise on practical terms without having to sacrifice fundamental beliefs which are important to some of us on personal levels.
 

zzz

Well-Known Member
#64
Thank you for your intelligent, informative and friendly posts Bigman2232.

Yes protonaut. That the universe is eternal and that time is cyclic is the only thing that makes sense, and it fits in nicely with the laws of cause and effect. But much more importantly from my point of view, it fits exactly with my own personal experiences.

Of course eternity implies that there was no beginning, so this rules out the possibility that God created the universe.

I sympathise with your wishes that more energy should be spent sorting out issues like poverty and disease, and of course many wonderful souls are working in those areas. However, such efforts are doomed to failure.

Bigman2232 rightly pointed out that entropy of the universe is continually increasing and will continue to increase. This is an accurate reflection of the increasing disturbance in our own minds.

The solution lies in the metaphysical, not in the physical, which is simply the expression of the metaphysical.

An angry person can only confront you if you have anger in you. A violent person can only confront you if you have violence in you etc. It is possible to prove this to yourself. Heal your anger and the angry people disappear.

The only saving energy is love. This is the only energy that when it is given, the giver does not lose power but is in fact empowered. There is only one soul who never loses power and we need His love to heal the disturbance in our own minds.
 

me1

Well-Known Member
#66
I'm sorry but it doesn't matter how many sites, articles or whatever you want to reference, you really need to learn what science and the associated definitions involved in science are. I took an evolution course and 50% of our time was spent clarifying the definitions used. Terms like theory, fact, evidence, science, species and so on mean very different things in science than in normal everyday speech. I think that is the biggest part to trying to help people understand. Scientific fact is not the same thing as everyday facts.

In all honesty, no person who actually understands evolution theory would ever accept that spontaneous generation is a facet of it.

Another HUGE point people need to realize is that evolution is not used to explain where life came from. It is a process by which original life has changed (or to use the more accurate term, mutated) to form a new branch of life. This is often called a new species but what determines one species from another is still being argued in the scientific community. I.e. Chimps and humans are ~98-99% genetically related but considered two separate species, whereas other animals can be even less related but considered the same species.

I think the reality is that most people just won't understand unless they learn for themselves the teachings in biology, genetics, biochemistry, cell biology, evolution and learn what it is to work in science.

And that is why as a whole, humans are doomed.

P.S. If you talk to a real scientist and not some paid for hack, they will completely agree that science does require faith, as does everything we do in life, but that that is not enough alone. Science never stops trying to advance/disprove theories.


I can reference all the evidence i want and you still wont accept it? Well that isn't being very open-minded or rational is it? :tongue:

You state:

"I took an evolution course and 50% of our time was spent clarifying the
definitions used. Terms like theory, fact, evidence, science, species
and so on"

and further:

"what determines one species from another is still being argued in the
scientific community"


If it still being 'argued' by the scientists themselves then how did they manage to 'clarify' it for you on your course? :wink:

For meaningful dialogue to take place, rigid, testable definitions are required, else the conversations descend to the level of story-telling.

Spontaneous generation was very much a part of the naturalistic *cough* 'explanation' for how life came about. The evolutionists must have since distanced themselves from it after it blew up in their faces! :tongue:

It is not possible for one species to evolve into another. The genetic variation within any species gene-pool does not allow for this. All that can be created are variations upon a theme. So if the gene pool is that of the dog, the theme is - dog.
Selective breeding experiments in a wide variety of species have confirmed this. While it is possible to create smaller or larger ones, bigger nosed or bushier tailed ones or the contradictory, all of this can only occur within specific, finite and well understood limits using the pre-existing genetic variation. You cannot selectively breed a trait that isn't already present in the gene-pool of that species.

Hence why 'natural selection' by itself, was given up upon as a mechanism for evolution. Mutations were then enlisted to help dig them out of a hole.... or so they hoped! But mutations have been well-studied also. The link i gave on an earlier post made a convincing, evidence-based argument for why mutations cannot facilitate evolution inter-specium. The mutation experiments involving fruit flies are compelling evidence against the erroneous belief that they can. Mutations are always harmful and weaken an organism, never strengthen it. The mutated die out, they dont prosper and no new species have, or ever could be, created this way.

If chimpanzees cannot mate with humans and produce fertile offspring then they -generally- wouldn't be considered the same species. You do not specify what the 'even less-related species' are, but the same logic applies as above.

The fields mentioned are contaminated with the pseudo-scientific evolutionary dogma. They are all taught with this biased slant. I dont wish to 'understand' the minds of the participants. Claiming that outsiders dont 'understand' is similar to a young child throwing a temper tantrum because the adults around them dont 'understand' his/her talking to an imaginary friend! I am not interested in the made-up, nor trying to fathom the language they have created to perpetually delude themselves and those credulous enough to follow them blindly.
 

Bigman2232

Well-Known Member
#67
I can reference all the evidence i want and you still wont accept it? Well that isn't being very open-minded or rational is it? :tongue:

You state:

"I took an evolution course and 50% of our time was spent clarifying the
definitions used. Terms like theory, fact, evidence, science, species
and so on"

and further:

"what determines one species from another is still being argued in the
scientific community"


If it still being 'argued' by the scientists themselves then how did they manage to 'clarify' it for you on your course? :wink:

For meaningful dialogue to take place, rigid, testable definitions are required, else the conversations descend to the level of story-telling.

Spontaneous generation was very much a part of the naturalistic *cough* 'explanation' for how life came about. The evolutionists must have since distanced themselves from it after it blew up in their faces! :tongue:

It is not possible for one species to evolve into another. The genetic variation within any species gene-pool does not allow for this. All that can be created are variations upon a theme. So if the gene pool is that of the dog, the theme is - dog.
Selective breeding experiments in a wide variety of species have confirmed this. While it is possible to create smaller or larger ones, bigger nosed or bushier tailed ones or the contradictory, all of this can only occur within specific, finite and well understood limits using the pre-existing genetic variation. You cannot selectively breed a trait that isn't already present in the gene-pool of that species.

Hence why 'natural selection' by itself, was given up upon as a mechanism for evolution. Mutations were then enlisted to help dig them out of a hole.... or so they hoped! But mutations have been well-studied also. The link i gave on an earlier post made a convincing, evidence-based argument for why mutations cannot facilitate evolution inter-specium. The mutation experiments involving fruit flies are compelling evidence against the erroneous belief that they can. Mutations are always harmful and weaken an organism, never strengthen it. The mutated die out, they dont prosper and no new species have, or ever could be, created this way.

If chimpanzees cannot mate with humans and produce fertile offspring then they -generally- wouldn't be considered the same species. You do not specify what the 'even less-related species' are, but the same logic applies as above.

The fields mentioned are contaminated with the pseudo-scientific evolutionary dogma. They are all taught with this biased slant. I dont wish to 'understand' the minds of the participants. Claiming that outsiders dont 'understand' is similar to a young child throwing a temper tantrum because the adults around them dont 'understand' his/her talking to an imaginary friend! I am not interested in the made-up, nor trying to fathom the language they have created to perpetually delude themselves and those credulous enough to follow them blindly.
Again, all your dribble just comes off as someone who is trying to sound scientific but has no actual experience in the scientific community. Referencing websites is not evidence. These are created by people who report what they want and ignore things that they don't like. And as I've said many times before, science is about constantly challenging theories and coming to new understandings. That's why we have definitions that are known but everyone is aware that these may become more refined in the future. We were told in the course what is meant by certain words but that like all science these may change.

Maybe the first discussions of evolution did involve a Lamarkian ideal of spontaneous generation but that is not believed now and is made clear that it is wrong. Just like how we once believed that the world was flat and that it was the center of the universe. Things change, but you want to go forward not backward.

Your talk about breeding, natural selection and mutations is some of the most uneducated blabbering I have ever read. It demonstrates that you have no idea what you are talking about other than what you've been told by some biased written website. It is correct that we can not selectively breed to make a new species but this is not how evolution works either. We can not make things evolve. This is were random mutations, can be beneficial just as they can be damaging, come into play. I don't have time to spend trying to teach you what and how mutations work or how natural selection factors into evolution but I don't think you would care anyways.

Unlike what you suggest, I don't just blindly follow what I am taught. I conduct my own experiments and tests of what I am taking in. I make an effort to learn all I can on the subjects.

And maybe I am throwing a temper tantrum because I'm tired of the world being filled with uneducated, ignorant people. People who would rather follow something that makes them "feel good" than something that is actually supported. The pope once recognized that evolution does occur, but wait, that was written off as the crazy pope who was wrong.

Honestly I wish every human being would just die.
 

zzz

Well-Known Member
#68
Hi Bigman2232, another dumb question for you.

If evolution theory is being taught in schools in the manner that you have described it, then why is it causing such a big problem in the US? What you have described doesn’t sound in the least bit controversial to me.

*

I am a human being.

Human relates to the physical body and the being is the eternal living energy that animates and drives the physical body.

That the human physical body has some common characteristics with the body of an ape I quite accept.
 

hammockmonkey

Well-Known Member
#69
This site is just frustrating
http://www.evolution-facts.org/Evolution-handbook/E-H-12a.htm

it is full of academic dishonesty, that is to say mischaracterizations and over generalizations. They make blanket statements and attribute them to "scientists" or that "scientists agree", but what scientists? Who? When? Just saying that somebody who calls themselves a scientist said something does not make it true. A small example of what I'm talking about is how they (the author's of/on the website) represent the fossil record as if it is some sort of perfect warehouse of the past that "scientists" just look at and can find everything out with perfect clarity. It shows they have absolutely no idea how fossilization happens or even what taphonomy is . . . . Oh, I'm sorry these are just crazy words "scientists" invent to jerk each other off with.

I don't want to get pissy (too late) its not that I'm not interested in questioning evolution, its just the "Other Side" has to offer something up as an alternative. . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:

zzz

Well-Known Member
#70
Nothing is frustrating hammockmonkey.

Frustration only exists in your own mind, and you are the one who created it.

This is a very useful thing to understand.
 

hammockmonkey

Well-Known Member
#71
Nothing is frustrating hammockmonkey.

Frustration only exists in your own mind, and you are the one who created it.

This is a very useful thing to understand.
actually no, frustrate means to disappoint or to balk. So, something frustrates me because it has disappointed me.

frus·trate
tr.v. frus·trat·ed, frus·trat·ing, frus·trates
1.
a. To prevent from accomplishing a purpose or fulfilling a desire; thwart: A persistent wind frustrated my attempt to rake the lawn.
b. To cause feelings of discouragement or bafflement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

zzz

Well-Known Member
#72
So if the circumstances are to your liking you will feel good, and if not you will feel dejected.

That’s fine, nothing is right and nothing is wrong.

But this is a very superficial existence, living under the spell of illusion, always blaming others (and even the wind) for your problems, and failing to take responsibility for your own self.

I trust you have a good supply of cigarettes and alcohol to help you cope with this existence.

And truth is always there, lurking in the background. And one day we will all have to face it. And at that time all supports will have been removed. There will be nowhere to run, nowhere to hide and nobody you can blame. Facing ourselves in the light of truth is going to be unbearable.

I haven’t written this for you hammockmonkey, I have nothing but good wishes for you. I have written this for my own self and anyone else who finds it useful.

But don’t worry; I’m just a crazy person who doesn’t know anything.
 

me1

Well-Known Member
#73
Again, all your dribble just comes off as someone who is trying to sound scientific but has no actual experience in the scientific community. Referencing websites is not evidence. These are created by people who report what they want and ignore things that they don't like. And as I've said many times before, science is about constantly challenging theories and coming to new understandings. That's why we have definitions that are known but everyone is aware that these may become more refined in the future. We were told in the course what is meant by certain words but that like all science these may change.

Maybe the first discussions of evolution did involve a Lamarkian ideal of spontaneous generation but that is not believed now and is made clear that it is wrong. Just like how we once believed that the world was flat and that it was the center of the universe. Things change, but you want to go forward not backward.

Your talk about breeding, natural selection and mutations is some of the most uneducated blabbering I have ever read. It demonstrates that you have no idea what you are talking about other than what you've been told by some biased written website. It is correct that we can not selectively breed to make a new species but this is not how evolution works either. We can not make things evolve. This is were random mutations, can be beneficial just as they can be damaging, come into play. I don't have time to spend trying to teach you what and how mutations work or how natural selection factors into evolution but I don't think you would care anyways.

Unlike what you suggest, I don't just blindly follow what I am taught. I conduct my own experiments and tests of what I am taking in. I make an effort to learn all I can on the subjects.

And maybe I am throwing a temper tantrum because I'm tired of the world being filled with uneducated, ignorant people. People who would rather follow something that makes them "feel good" than something that is actually supported. The pope once recognized that evolution does occur, but wait, that was written off as the crazy pope who was wrong.

Honestly I wish every human being would just die.

Instead of simply calling my writings 'dribble' why dont you attempt to refute them? You really ought to be trying to destroy my argument, but instead you resort to name-calling.

In my previous post i made it quite clear that mutations had been 'enlisted', as i put it, to try to salvage evolutionary-theory. I then pointed to a website containing work conducted by geneticists and epidemiologists, most of whom are evolutionists and are not likely to have any bias towards to creationism. If they could find positive evidence they would be shouting it from the rooftops. If you can refute the experimental-data involving fruit-flies and the observations of the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaka, aswell as Chernobyl. All showing quite clearly that mutations are extremely harmful and benefits do not arise from them then do so, otherwise accept my position, please.


Mutations have been well-studied, as i stated. They are rare, random and never really confer any benefit. They weaken the organism and the mutated always die out. Mutations of the sexual genetic material, i.e. the sperm and the egg, said to facilitate evolution are even more rare, making evolution that little bit more implausible.

Incidently, the 'mutations' that allow bacteria to survive antibiotic use are not in fact mutations at all, but due to genetic-variation. Just like all other species of life bacteria have variations upon a theme, enabling some to survive antibiotic use. Mutated forms of bacteria, which exist also, are weaker than the rest of the population and die out.

Claiming that creationists only report what they want to and would hide evidence they didn't like is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, i am afraid. The evolutionists, through the mainstream-media and the education system, both of which they have control over, have made all manner of false statements, presenting deliberate frauds as 'proof' of man's evolution and such like, while attempting to suppress evidence of human existence and activity on earth, dating well before the time they were supposed to have 'evolved from apes' or 'ape-like' creatures, depending on who you listen too. They also always report findings with an evolutionary slant before any examinations can take place to ascertain whether or not that is in fact what has been discovered, further enforcing the myth that evolution is a plausible concept or worse 'has been proven'.

It seems daft of you to call my statements on selective breeding and natural selection 'uneducated blathering' then do an about-turn and label them 'correct'. But there you go. I only devoted a little space to this topic because i wanted to clarify a point. That to many people genetic-variation within species -is- evolution and somehow 'proves' that we, and all other life 'evolved', or ever could for that matter. I then went on to mutations and how they were now erroneously considered by evolutionists, publicly at least, to be able to enable evolution inter-speciem. Consequently i do not see the purpose of your response as you have merely misrepresented my statements, probably on purpose, so as to enable you to have something to comment upon. Oh wait at a minute, maybe i do see the point afterall! ^_^

I must say your post is highly unimpressive, but not at all surprising. Is this what they teach you in your schools, colleges and universities? To be deliberately obnoxious and uncompromisingly dismissive of 'outsiders' who have the temerity to ask for evidence instead of a mere reiteration of your unsupported statements? Science it is not!
 

Bigman2232

Well-Known Member
#75
Hi Bigman2232, another dumb question for you.

If evolution theory is being taught in schools in the manner that you have described it, then why is it causing such a big problem in the US? What you have described doesn’t sound in the least bit controversial to me.

*

I am a human being.

Human relates to the physical body and the being is the eternal living energy that animates and drives the physical body.

That the human physical body has some common characteristics with the body of an ape I quite accept.
First, I'm Canadian so the education system overall is better than the one in the states.

I think a big reason for the problems in the US is because it's still divided between the religious and the science. Also because there is no one set teaching structure. Each school decides what and how they teach it. Finally it has to do with who teaches it and whether they are teaching what evolution really means or what people think it means.

I went to catholic schools and attended mandatory religion classes but we were never forced to ignore one theory over another. I got my basic intro to evolution in high school but it was in University that I took an actual class on evolution. It was not brainwashing as AA has suggested but a very insightful class. I unfortunately can't express what I learned in the manner that was taught to me.

Like I said before and in which AA simply dismissed as me making excuses, you really can't understand a scientific theory unless you have been in a science environment.

AS for ArborrealArthur, Have you ever actually taken a genetics class? Oh and I said you were right in a very small part of breeding, a part that has nothing to do with actual evolution.

I honestly don't like people in the first place and would gladly end you if I had the chance. Yes I'm very juvenile, Guess what I don't give a fuck. Try learning something other than from the internet. I.E. go do some of this stuff yourself.
 

jonstark

Well-Known Member
#76
First, I'm Canadian so the education system overall is better than the one in the states.
There is no Canadian educational system. Each province has its own education board and makes decisions for itself. There is no standardized countrywide examination. The exams are provincial.
Also, your statement is self-contradictory at best.
 

zzz

Well-Known Member
#77
So this thread has finished up like so many others on this forum, with some winners and losers, or maybe just losers.

And the losers will become more stubborn and hate will grow.

And this is a world of duality (due to faulty consciousness), so the winners will soon be losers and the losers will soon be winners.

And there is so much energy expended in trying to win, and so much energy dissipated when you lose.

Of course nobody wins and nobody loses, because winning and losing is just an experience.

And failing to understand who is experiencing is the cause of all our problems.

Evolution theory (albeit unintentionally) helps to support the understanding that you are a physical body, but this is not true. And this leads to a loss of dignity and self-respect.

But as I have said before, nothing is right and nothing is wrong.

And this faulty consciousness can be very enjoyable. It enables you to dominate and enjoy others, to manipulate and exploit. Other people are seen as mere objects.

But eventually all your energy is dissipated and you suffer. And when the suffering becomes too much for you, you will change.

Falsehood leads to suffering and truth leads to liberation from suffering.
 

zzz

Well-Known Member
#79
Yes protonaut, I agree with you.

And yes, I will continue to see things from a spiritual perspective.

*

I wish you well with your efforts to explore critical thinking; I may even look into this subject myself.

However my own focus will remain firmly fixed on making myself conscious and developing my natural loving nature. This automatically improves one’s natural ability to discern truth from falsehood. Then, looking into someone’s eyes (the windows of the soul) will tell you all you need to know.

Sweet feelings from zzz.

Thank you for your posts on quantum theory, which I have enjoyed and learnt from.
 

zzz

Well-Known Member
#80
Hmmmm. It would appear that there is no edit facility.

Just had the thought that you may also care to look into your own self and examine the true intention behind your above post. Was it to help me see something about myself that may be useful to me, or was it to draw my (and others) attention to critical thinking, which is of interest to you. I’m not suggesting anything; only you know the answer to that. Either way, the intention is good, though one of them is not honest.

I am always more than happy to be corrected.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Please Donate to Help Keep SF Running

Total amount
$70.00
Goal
$255.00
Top