Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Well the number one thing is your continued assurtion that there is no evidence. And the supporting evidence is your misunderstanding of what a theory is, what fact is and later what evidence is.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
100 Reasons why Evolution is Stupid - Dr. Hovind
- Thread starter Sculelos
- Start date
OK I read all I said real fast and came up with two claims I made.
1. there is little evidence proving evolution is the source of life and
2. life needs power.
Are those "factually wrong"?
1. there is little evidence proving evolution is the source of life and
2. life needs power.
Are those "factually wrong"?
Oh I did not say "no" evidence, did I? I know there are many strange similarities between species. It does not prove to me the similarities mean they came from the same beginning.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
The first one is factually wrong, there is actually no evidence proving evolution is the source of life as evolution doesn't touch on the source of life, only on how life develops over time.
Saying evolution is the source is kind of like saying a batter is the source of a baseball flying through the air; the pitcher is the source, the batter picked up the duties after the pitcher released the ball. And this is the same relationship between abiogenesis and evolution. Abiogenesis is the source of life (a hypothesis anyways, for now) and evolution is the development or adaptation of life. They are two separate processes working on the same thing at separate times.
I don't know if number two is factually wrong because I don't understand what you mean by "life needs power".
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Evolution does not cover the source of life. At all. Different theory all together.
On the second one I don't see how thats relevant?
And you said there "is not much evidence to support ToE". When the opposite is true. That is like saying the earith is not mostly covered by water.
And you are right on that claim. Thankfully thousands of other pieces of evidence are also with that fact which all accumulate into the theory of evolution.
OK. Just shoot me now and get it over with please.
The point IS (but you will never ever see it) is it takes faith to believe evolution is how you got here BECAUSE the source of life is not proved by SCIENCE, is it?
Seeing that EVOLUTION cannot happen with NO BEGINNING and NO POWER they are sorta related. Now, aren't they? But....but....if they were taught in school it would be in two different classes. Oh God.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Abiogensis is a different theory. Some evolutionary biologists get behind that. However there are some debates on exactly how abiogensis occurs. I can link you to those theories.
Also it doesn't take faith to see evolution. Even if god did make everything billions of years ago (I don't buy that) it still doesn't make evolution true. Saying "I don't know" isn't an act of faith. Its an act of honesty.
Also it doesn't take faith to see evolution. Even if god did make everything billions of years ago (I don't buy that) it still doesn't make evolution true. Saying "I don't know" isn't an act of faith. Its an act of honesty.
Who's not saying "I don't know?" YOU ARE. EVOLUTIONISTS are. WE are saying "God knows". YOU are saying you know. You want me to say it? On this DEBATE forum? OK! "I don't know". Happy?
Last edited:
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
Whatever the source is wouldn't have any effect on the validity of evolution. It is proven fact, so regardless of whatever we don't know about the source of life, we know for a fact that after some source, be it a random chemical reaction or an omnipotent intelligence, life began to develop and we call that process evolution.
They are no more related to each other than my cars engine is to the windshield wipers. Two completely separate processes acting on the same thing. And no, they wouldn't be taught in two different classes, they are still both science subjects so they would be taught in science class whenever the subject of biology is studied.
Sculelos
Active Member
Okay, first off, if evolution was proved to be true without a doubt I would easily say the Bible is completely false and become completely atheistic.
However logically I can not say that because I have questions that are only answered in a nonsensical way when I think of the evolutionist answer.
The first thing we must consider is Spontaneous Generation also known as Abiogenesis. Consider what science accepts as current fact.
"The spontaneous generation origin of living things at the present time is believed to be extremely improbable. Yet that this same event occurred in the past is quite probable. The difference lies in the conditions existing on earth, then as opposed to now.... the postulated origin of living matter assumes the occurrence of a chemical evolution."
And this
"The origin of life presupposes first of all, the natural accumulation of suitable raw materials....Further presupposed is a gradual evolution of increasingly complex systems from the raw materials until a self-contained unit appears which we would be willing to recognize as a living thing. The compounds which abounded in the primeval seas on our cooling planet and were therefore available to serve as the building units for the edifice of life were thus selected for their roles by a process of atomic evolution. But most of these compounds are too unstable to exist for more then fractions of a second."
This to me is equal to saying there was no life in the beginning and life generated out of nonliving matter.
Second part is mutations however I won't go into great detail as in real life examples all mutations are lost due to the process of natural selection but here is a few examples.
"Mutation...provides the raw material of evolution; it is a random affair and takes place in all directions the great majority of mutant genes are harmful in their effects on the organism. Mutations have been studied for more then a half-century; much has been learned, and that a geneticist is constrained to admit that his knowledge is decidedly inadequate. We did not consider them important because they nearly always represented obviously disadvantageous modification from the point of view of the struggle for existence; consequently they would most likely be rapidly eliminated in the wild state by the operation of natural selection.'"
Brilliant, I'd dare say this provides an excellent case for evolution not happening from mutations as any mutants would die do to natural selection.
However logically I can not say that because I have questions that are only answered in a nonsensical way when I think of the evolutionist answer.
The first thing we must consider is Spontaneous Generation also known as Abiogenesis. Consider what science accepts as current fact.
"The spontaneous generation origin of living things at the present time is believed to be extremely improbable. Yet that this same event occurred in the past is quite probable. The difference lies in the conditions existing on earth, then as opposed to now.... the postulated origin of living matter assumes the occurrence of a chemical evolution."
And this
"The origin of life presupposes first of all, the natural accumulation of suitable raw materials....Further presupposed is a gradual evolution of increasingly complex systems from the raw materials until a self-contained unit appears which we would be willing to recognize as a living thing. The compounds which abounded in the primeval seas on our cooling planet and were therefore available to serve as the building units for the edifice of life were thus selected for their roles by a process of atomic evolution. But most of these compounds are too unstable to exist for more then fractions of a second."
This to me is equal to saying there was no life in the beginning and life generated out of nonliving matter.
Second part is mutations however I won't go into great detail as in real life examples all mutations are lost due to the process of natural selection but here is a few examples.
"Mutation...provides the raw material of evolution; it is a random affair and takes place in all directions the great majority of mutant genes are harmful in their effects on the organism. Mutations have been studied for more then a half-century; much has been learned, and that a geneticist is constrained to admit that his knowledge is decidedly inadequate. We did not consider them important because they nearly always represented obviously disadvantageous modification from the point of view of the struggle for existence; consequently they would most likely be rapidly eliminated in the wild state by the operation of natural selection.'"
Brilliant, I'd dare say this provides an excellent case for evolution not happening from mutations as any mutants would die do to natural selection.
I am quite sure that if abiogenesis gets proven I will not have to search through many scientific journals to see the evidence. I think it will be breaking news and I will not be able to dodge it, if I tried with all my might. I'll be looking forward to it.
Source please? This guy is in BIG trouble with all the evolutionist forum posters. Yes! They are all exactly alike. Every single one has said to me Oh you poor poor thing thinking the source of life has anything to do with "evolution". And I would say but....and they would say go read something. Every last one of them.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
Why? There is absolutely no reason to throw out religion just because evolution is true. Since I am an atheist I would say you are making the right decision, but it would be for the wrong reasons.
Most do die due to natural selection, but sometimes the mutation is actually better suited for surviving the environment and if there's a change in environment the "normal" members of the species would die from natural selection and the mutations and their offspring would be the new "normal" in the species. Do that enough times and the newest species is a completely different species from the original.
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
If Galileo were alive today he laugh at this.
Not so. Our Lord and God is suppose to know what he is talking about. If the words that are recorded are a bunch of malarkey
then there be nothing to trust except random chance. You know one lie spoils the whole of it.
Yes, I suppose so.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Not particularly and I find fault in your logic. I don't like the term evolutionist as it doesn't define me as a person. Its simply scientific fact and I can present the evidence found in science and I can give you the reasoning behind them. I can probably answer most questions you have with a little bit of research if science has found that information.
But It rounds back to my point that saying "I don't know" doesn't require faith as its simply a true statment admitting our ignorance. We don't know for sure how abiogensis happened or in what manner or if it did at all. We have our best working theories on it. We are only claiming to follow the evidence which we do. That is all. Creationists claim to know the mind of the one true god and his words and direction. It is my personal view that this is the more unbelievable position.
Last edited:
Alceste
Vagabond
You are indeed a creationist because:
1. You believe evolution has not been proven.
2. You believe that if it is true, God must have invented it.
3. You rely on arguments found ONLY in creationist propaganda, and nowhere else, to argue your own position. (For example, you think "kinds" of animals is a meaningful phrase, you think the big bang theory and evolution are related, and you think there's a difference or barrier between micro- and macro- evolution.)
4. You threaten to flee the thread in a strop when someone offers to explain evolution to you.
5. You think that when people try to explain why you're wrong, they're just being mean.
Last edited:
Sculelos
Active Member
If I found out that what I read in the Bible couldn't be evaluated as true through scientific means I would definitely have good reason to believe that the rest of it was also a load of baloney.
Indeed. I think that at sometime in the future mankind will be able to create bionic lifeforms out of nano-technology but that only proves that a capable designer can create life.
For us to engineer life think of a few things we would have to consider before it would even be possible.
First you need 4 basic things to have life of any sort. And bear with me as I'm simplifying each function so that the layman might understand.
DNA (Stores the information to How cells spread and function)
RNA (The structore of how cells spread and function)
mRNA (The cells that send and receive the information simultaneously, without mRNA both DNA and RNA by themselves are useless)
mtDNA (This is part of the DNA sequence carried by only female cells)
Lets say the most simple function of a cell is these 4 parts and that we need 4 exact parts to get a functional cell and that we need all of them online at the same exact time or the cell dies in a matter of seconds.
Every single effect no matter how small must start with 4 simultaneous effects and there are 65,536 combinations in a single block. (AKA One letter or number)
Every single effect is useless by itself and any singular effect can only last for a few seconds by itself if it's a strong force.
Combine the two and you have 4,294,967,296 combinations but this is only for a non-living cell to form.
If you say a basic living cell needs at least these 4 things to live you have DNA, mtDNA, RNA, mRNA and we know we would need all 4 to come online at the same exact time or else all would fizzle out and die, so figure out the probability of this happening by chance.
Okay let's say we need 4 non-living cells to mutate spontaneously into these living cells all at the same time but only a single 1/4,294,967,296 combinations will work on each part.
Combine all together and you end up with a 1/1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176 chance that you would get a single functioning cell.
Lets say even if you had lightning strike the same area 4 times per second it would still take you on average 38,308,547,532,595,291 years to form a single bacteria.
Maby it truly indeed to too hard for my puny little mind to fathom how such is possible considering I would still need these twenty questions answered in a non-contradictory way first before my first hypothetical scenario to form a single cell bacterium would even be possible.
Last edited:
Skwim
Veteran Member
I notice that you address Hovind as "Dr.." Just so you know and to give you some insight into the typical lack of ethical behavior in the creationist camp; consider.
"Having a website called "Dr. Dino" has provoked some academics to look closely at how Hovind presents his education and credentials. Chemistry professor Karen Bartelt has said that it is "very unusual for a person with a Ph.D., even a real one, to list oneself in the phonebook as "Dr Hovind", as Hovind has done." [emphasis in original]. Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy, expert on the history of creationism and activist in the creation-evolution controversy, wrote that Hovind's lack of academic training makes it impossible to engage him on a professional level.
Other critics of Hovind have pointed out that Patriot Bible University is a diploma mill, as it has unreasonably low graduation requirements, lack of sufficient faculty or educational standards, and a suspicious tuition scheme."
Source: the Wikipedia web site you linked to.
And here's the famous Patriot Bible University, Hovind's alma mater Other critics of Hovind have pointed out that Patriot Bible University is a diploma mill, as it has unreasonably low graduation requirements, lack of sufficient faculty or educational standards, and a suspicious tuition scheme."
Source: the Wikipedia web site you linked to.
