EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[Magic Man]

1. I was not talking about scientists, but material evolutionists

What exactly is a material evolutionist and why aren't they scientists?

2. Scientists can only work with what they accept as real , this means that a tiny proportion of all the material both living and dead is used

What? What does this even mean?

4) A few recent discoveries that make the theory dodgy, regarding undiscovered stuff, and not necessarily relating directly to the theory a) The recent discovery that mammoths became extinct much later than was believed, considering this is a recent extinction then a point worth noting

How do you think that makes the ToE "dodgy"?

b) Hominids that have the same bone structure foot position as modern humans much older than previously thought

First, can you give us some links to these claims, so that we can see what the actual findings are, and not just your limited idea of them?

Second, so what if humans-type animals are older than previously thought?

c) Complex life forms 400 million years previous to what was the last estimate....links to follow , when I get time

And? You're going to need to explain why you think any of this makes the ToE "dodgy", since logically none of it does anything like that.

 

[themadhair]

1. I was not talking about scientists, but material evolutionists

When you contradict a central branch of biology you have a disagreement with biologists. It is as simple as that.

2. Scientists can only work with what they accept as real , this means that a tiny proportion of all the material both living and dead is used

Are you saying you don’t think the scientific method works?

3. Please list questions, unanswered by me

Read pretty much any post I’ve made. The side stepping is pretty blatant at this stage.

a) The recent discovery that mammoths became extinct much later than was believed, considering this is a recent extinction then a point worth noting b) Hominids that have the same bone structure foot position as modern humans much older than previously thought c) Complex life forms 400 million years previous to what was the last estimate....links to follow , when I get time

Assuming these claims are true…how are they contradictory to evolution? How do they contradict the idea of descent with modification for example? Do you even understand what evolution and evolutionary theory even is????

 

[painted wolf]

1. I was not talking about scientists, but material evolutionists

first off... what is a "material evolutionist"?
Second... you realize that evolution is central to all biological sciences, including medicine.

2. Scientists can only work with what they accept as real , this means that a tiny proportion of all the material both living and dead is used

No, they can only work with what has been repeatedly demonstrated to be real.

3. Please list questions, unanswered by me

What is a species in your opinion....
What prevents one species from becoming two species...
Why are you so against the biological species concept when your own scripture says that there are millions of other species beyond the already described ones?

4) A few recent discoveries that make the theory dodgy, regarding undiscovered stuff, and not necessarily relating directly to the theory a) The recent discovery that mammoths became extinct much later than was believed, considering this is a recent extinction then a point worth noting

What does this have to do with evolution? All it shows is that the Mammoth survived (in some places) longer than was once thought. It has nothing to do with the evolution of the Mammoth itself.

b) Hominids that have the same bone structure foot position as modern humans much older than previously thought

Not really... The find that I think you are referring to just showed that early Homo walked like modern Homo does... not that groundbreaking, but very nice to have what scientists thought confirmed.

c) Complex life forms 400 million years previous to what was the last estimate....links to follow , when I get time

That doesn't disprove evolution at all... it helps to clear up and extend the earliest metazoans.
It has nothing to do with extending the human species or any hominids back in time... just those early metazoans.
If anything this helps evolution by providing more evidence for the long development of the major phyla.
*edit* I should also point out that this discovery helps to boost the data we have from genetic studies... the genetics showed that the early metazoans extend further in time than the fossil record had at the time shown.... Now the fossil record is backing up the genetic record... this is total win for evolution!

wa:do

 

[slave2six]

Considering all this business of homo-sapiens possibly being older than some suspect, what theory would you put forth in the place of the theory of evolution?

I'm trying to understand your position. What is the big problem? Why cry, "evolution is a lie"? Are you trying to say that there is any new evidence that supports the Biblical creation story or perhaps the creation story of some other culture? Just what point are you trying to make?

 

[Eddy Daze]

MBall...Material evolutionists are people who believe one species can become a new one, similar to one element becoming a new one (eg lead to gold), but some scientists can believe that the elements and species are set.
The amount of scientists and archaeologists who do not publish or reveal works that go against convention is much greater than thought I believe and those that do publish, the work rarely gets into the mainstream or is ignored so mainstream scientists have a small bandwidth of data to
work with.
If you accept the theory of evolution as set in its present form then maybe you should ask yourself why, and why new discoveries are of no importance to it, why the atachment to the theory if it is wrong, while ignoring new discoveries? All you are doing in your post is poo pooing new stuff, as if the theory as it is, is some form of religious artifact that needs protecting at all costs.

 

[Eddy Daze]

PW...there are so much studies out there that evolutionists can opick and choose to "prove" they were right all along.


Slave... the main point I am trying to make is that it is illogical in its present form, it is illogical to assume that lead can become gold, or that an apple seed can become a pear tree, or a human embryo become an elephant, please tell me where else in the real or theoretical world this type of logic is applied?

 

[Rough_ER]

PW...there are so much studies out there that evolutionists can opick and choose to "prove" they were right all along.

Just another wild statement with no supporting evidence... You can't make a provocative statement like this and provide no reference. It makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

it is illogical to assume that lead can become gold

Before science had progressed, a while back, you would have been considered to be correct.

But you're not. You REALLY can turn lead into gold. Sure it's not easy but it's possible.

Anyway, that's not really the case in point. Sorry

GhK.

 

[DarkSun]

Before science had progressed, a while back, you would have been considered to be correct.

But you're not. You REALLY can turn lead into gold. Sure it's not easy but it's possible.

Anyway, that's not really the case in point. Sorry

GhK.

True. Just isolate a radioactive nucleus of lead which will decay via positron emission and then alpha emission. Presto, you have Gold. :yes:

 

[painted wolf]

MBall...Material evolutionists are people who believe one species can become a new one, similar to one element becoming a new one (eg lead to gold), but some scientists can believe that the elements and species are set.

right.... evidence please?

The amount of scientists and archaeologists who do not publish or reveal works that go against convention is much greater than thought I believe and those that do publish, the work rarely gets into the mainstream or is ignored so mainstream scientists have a small bandwidth of data to work with.

Mainstream scientists do not rely on "mainstream" media.... Most scientists have access to dozens of small obscure specialist journals. The "bandwidth of data" is massive... a fact that only those who don't have any experience with science would not understand.

If you accept the theory of evolution as set in its present form then maybe you should ask yourself why, and why new discoveries are of no importance to it, why the atachment to the theory if it is wrong, while ignoring new discoveries?

New discoveries are supporting evolution every day... I don't know what 'new discoveries' you are talking about.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/73274-week-evolution.html

All you are doing in your post is poo pooing new stuff, as if the theory as it is, is some form of religious artifact that needs protecting at all costs.

What is this new stuff? Thus far you have only posted one link to a story that you clearly misunderstood.

PW...there are so much studies out there that evolutionists can opick and choose to "prove" they were right all along.

There is no need to "pick and choose"....

Slave... the main point I am trying to make is that it is illogical in its present form, it is illogical to assume that lead can become gold,

You need to look into atomic structure and atomic decay. One element can indeed become another one over time. Lead can become gold given the right bombardment of protons... though it is much more interesting and common to turn gold into lead.
Nuclear power is based on the fact that one element eventually becomes another one.

or that an apple seed can become a pear tree, or a human embryo become an elephant, please tell me where else in the real or theoretical world this type of logic is applied?

Evolution doesn't say any of that is possible... You clearly have a warped view of what evolution is and isn't.

wa:do

 

[themadhair]

MBall...Material evolutionists are people who believe one species can become a new one,

We call those biologists.

but some scientists can believe that the elements and species are set.

Not only are these scientists in the vast vast minority – but they aren’t even producing any research on this.

The amount of scientists and archaeologists who do not publish or reveal works that go against convention is much greater than thought I believe and those that do publish, the work rarely gets into the mainstream or is ignored so mainstream scientists have a small bandwidth of data to work with.

Translation: I don’t have any argument nor any evidence whatsoever so I’m going to make up something unfounded and unsupported and hope no notices who vacuous it is.

If you accept the theory of evolution as set in its present form then maybe you should ask yourself why, and why new discoveries are of no importance to it, why the atachment to the theory if it is wrong, while ignoring new discoveries?

Maybe because those new discoveries are strengthening and support evolutionary theory?

All you are doing in your post is poo pooing new stuff, as if the theory as it is, is some form of religious artifact that needs protecting at all costs.

All you are doing Eddy permanently Dazed is ignoring everything being discovered by scientists in the field of biology. So far you have presented a big fat nothing (bar ignorance) to support your contention that evolutionary theory is flawed.

Nor do you answer any questions put to you but I’m not surprised.

PW...there are so much studies out there that evolutionists can opick and choose to "prove" they were right all along.

Care to point to any peer reviewed studies that argue against evolution? Just one will do.

Slave... the main point I am trying to make is that it is illogical in its present form,

You have to explain where it is illogical. Ignorance of something doesn’t make that something illogical.

it is illogical to assume that lead can become gold,

Not only does such happen in supernovae explosions and not only has such been done ion the lab – but this has nothing to do with biological evolution.

or that an apple seed can become a pear tree,

Care to explain what barrier prevents genetic mutations from accumulating to the point where great change happens? Or is repeated assertion a new form of debating tactic these days?

or a human embryo become an elephant,

The above doesn’t even make sense. Can you point to any peer-reviewed paper that would suggest the above? Heck, I’ll be liberal about it – point to any statement by any biologist that suggests the above? And when you fail to do that will come back here and retract the above moronic statement? I know 6 year old kids who would understand evolutionary theory better than you and see the above claim for the farce that it is.

please tell me where else in the real or theoretical world this type of logic is applied?

Since you know nothing about biology (or science for that matter) – how would you know whether such logic was or was not present in the first place????

 

[Sunstone]

I suspect the vast majority of creationists secretly know that evolution is a fact.

 

[DarkSun]

I suspect the vast majority of creationists secretly know that evolution is a fact.

Can you prove this? :areyoucra

 

[painted wolf]

Can you prove this?

I strongly suspect he is right...
The fight isn't over evolution being factual... it's about it being bad for faith.
Groups like AIG are quite clear about this. You can not have faith in god and accept science at he same time... unless you are willing to discard anything that disturbs faith.

They are protecting their souls by denouncing fact. The louder they do it, the more faithful they feel. The more they fight earthly truth the more they justify spiritual truth.

wa:do

ps.. it's like the odd fact that the preachers who are the strongest against GBLT people are usually gay themselves. You are loudest against issues that you struggle with personally.

 

[DarkSun]

I strongly suspect he is right...
The fight isn't over evolution being factual... it's about it being bad for faith.
Groups like AIG are quite clear about this. You can not have faith in god and accept science at he same time... unless you are willing to discard anything that disturbs faith.

They are protecting their souls by denouncing fact. The louder they do it, the more faithful they feel. The more they fight earthly truth the more they justify spiritual truth.

wa:do

ps.. it's like the odd fact that the preachers who are the strongest against GBLT people are usually gay themselves. You are loudest against issues that you struggle with personally.

So what of Creationists who do not openly renounce science, but still show disbelief in it? Don't you think it's likely that they believe what they do because that's the way they see the world?

 

[painted wolf]

So what of Creationists who do not openly renounce science, but still show disbelief in it? Don't you think it's likely that they believe what they do because that's the way they see the world?

I think some of them are miseducated.... Science education in the USA is pretty abysmal...
I think some of them are trying to find a way to preserve their faith and their interest in science... ID comes to mind in this case.

I think that people really enjoy science and love to learn about it, but that it can raise questions that they are uncomfortable with. In such cases they will latch onto anything or anyone that can help ease that discomfort. As long as it sounds scientific (however thinly) it will be held up as a way to preserve ones faith and ones love of science.

I also don't think a lot of people are doing this consciously... I think it is a natural self-defense mechanism that needs to be gently deactivated. You see the same response with people trying to preserve political ideologies... ignoring evidence that contradicts the 'faith' and clinging to evidence (again however thin) that supports it.

wa:do

 

[themadhair]

One of my former science teachers used to believe that light rays bounce of a mirror at ninety degrees. The textbook we had said the same thing but was referring to the plane through which the light travelled. My teacher misunderstood this and actually believed that light could reflect like so:

The thing is that my teacher was really good at teaching science. She knew her stuff, had enthusiasm and could articulate the material brilliantly. It makes me wonder though. If a simple misunderstanding of a textbook line could led to misunderstandings of this nature, how much damage can a book like Panda’s do?

 

[painted wolf]

Sadly most primary school teachers are not expected to stay updated or even very proficient with science... there are groups and schools trying to remedy this, but it's a major problem.
High school science teachers are expected to be amazingly broad in their knowledge... biology, chemistry, earth science and so on... unfortunately this means they don't have a chance to develop any real depth of knowledge on any of it.

Panda's is a propaganda book... thankfully it has been recognized as such in a court of law.

wa:do

 

[fantome profane]

I suspect the vast majority of creationists secretly know that evolution is a fact.

I suspect that a great many creationists are fully aware that scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution, but their faith tells them that despite this fact evolution cannot be true. There may be other motivations, money, pride, prestige in their community etc, but in most cases I think their faith is sincere.

When they came right out and say that they reject evolution because of their faith, despite the overwhelming evidence, this is a position that I can have a little bit of respect for. I think it is a foolish position, but at least it is an honest one. It is the ones who know that the evidence supports evolution and lie about it, misleading and deceiving the uneducated gullible public who deserve my complete contempt.

 

[Magic Man]

MBall...Material evolutionists are people who believe one species can become a new one,

Ah, then all you have to say is biologists, or even scientists.

similar to one element becoming a new one (eg lead to gold),

Um...no, that's called alchemy, and isn't actually believed by modern science. Your attempt to link the two only shows your ignorance on the topic.

but some scientists can believe that the elements and species are set.

Actually, all scientists believe that, considering that's what science has shown us.

The amount of scientists and archaeologists who do not publish or reveal works that go against convention is much greater than thought I believe and those that do publish, the work rarely gets into the mainstream or is ignored so mainstream scientists have a small bandwidth of data to

work with.

Ah, the old conspiracy theories. What you need to understand is that there is no conspiracy against creationism in the scientific community. It's that simple. If a scientist comes up with a hypothesis, he's welcome to test it and see what he gets. He can then submit his testings to other scientists and see what they get. If someone comes up with something that contradicts current thought on a certain subject, it's tested and either upheld or rejected.

If you accept the theory of evolution as set in its present form then maybe you should ask yourself why,

I think the better idea is to ask yourself why you don't accept it. There's plenty of evidence and reasons to accept it. The only one not to accept it is ignorance, willful or otherwise.

and why new discoveries are of no importance to it, why the atachment to the theory if it is wrong, while ignoring new discoveries?

New discoveries are very important to it. They're constantly finding stuff that provides new details on certain species and fills in more little bits in the theory. I'm assumig you're referring to things you perceive as contradicting the theory. Such things can generally easily be shown to be fakes or wrong. If you have any examples you'd like to share, go right ahead and we'll show you what's wrong with them. No one ignores new discoveries...except those who reject the theory of evolution.

There is no special attachment to the theory. If it was wrong, we'd all just move on and look for a different explanation. However, since there is about as much evidence supporting the theory (hence it being considered a scientific theory) as there is supporting the law of gravity, and all of the predictions made through the theory have been correct, finding out that evolution didn't occur would be equal to finding out that the earth doesn't revolve around the sun.

All you are doing in your post is poo pooing new stuff, as if the theory as it is, is some form of religious artifact that needs protecting at all costs.

No, all you're doing is projecting. You think because you and others have faith in your own hypothesis (because there's a difference between "theory" and "hypothesis") even in the face of contradicting evidence, that everyone else is the same as you. All you have to do is actually go look at the evidence for evolution. We accept it the same way we accept medicine or gravity or cars. We poo poo new stuff because the new things are blatant fakes produced to try to hold onto a worldview. If there comes about legitimate evidence against evolution, it will be taken seriously, and either upheld or proven false.

The one thing you need to know is that the ToE is as much fact as gravity is or tides are or animal breeding is. It's fact, not dogma, but fact. If you are actually interested you can see why it's fact very easily.