Proof Against Evolution

[jmaster78]

I took a portion of my time in life and devoted it to studying evolution, i like to wiegh propabilities, look at the odds, and see if it is possible in any case.

My beleif- The Theory of Evolution is False, although some creatures do change over time, but not in a evolutionary way.

I was standing outside by my house and i saw a tree. Where does a tree come from? From a seed? and the seed comes from a tree? Which came first? What is the chance that the tree just happened to have roots, that happened to know how to obsorbed water, and the tree happened to have a trunk, which happened to know how to transfer water to the leaves, and it just happened to have leaves, that knew how to obsorbed light from the sun, and it just happened to know how to store it, and so on, and so on.

To beleive in evolution is to believe that almost everything "just happened." Evolution cannot explain the begining. At what point did something exist? Did all things come from that same Big Bang point? What chance was there that life would arise out of all of this?

The Theory of Evolution is False, although some creatures do change over time???:thud:

 

[Flappycat]

The idea is that living entities are not physical beings and instead exist prior to material manifestation. The universe is then manifest according to the desires of these living entities. This is contrary to the idea that a dull matter evolves into desiring beings. The basic idea here is that dull matter does absolutely nothing until it is moved or agitated by a living entity. This universe exists because there is the general desire to be our own controllers and enjoyers; to be our own Gods.

I see what you're getting at, but where the heck do you get this information? Anything rooted in empirical observation? I'm just not seeing even the most basic rationale for this. If it's just some gut feeling, join the club. I've known people who have a gut feeling that they turn into werewolves in the light of the full moon. There's even some weird cult for them situated up in Ohio somewhere. I don't want to hear what came to you after smoking a few reefers or meditating or whatever it is you do. I want to hear the full story as to what leads you to your conclusions, from start to finish. At least give me the reader's digest version, sheesh. I'm not trying to be offensive. I just need some plausible basis for your beliefs if I'm going to take them seriously.

 

[religion-science]

I know it has been said to death but i just have to say it again. There is lots, and i mean LOTS of evidence for evolution. If you are really interested in this then i suggest you pick up a basic biology text book. Have a look at the simple organisms, when they were around and follow their progression. A tree or ape didn't just appear one day. They gradually evolved from other creatures/plants.

"what chance was there that life would arise out of all of this?" Well it seem quite abig one. look up something called The Anthropic Principal. Basically says if many of the universal constants wern't exactly as they are then life would not have formed. That is another point though.

 

[Paraprakrti]

I see what you're getting at, but where the heck do you get this information? Anything rooted in empirical observation? I'm just not seeing even the most basic rationale for this. If it's just some gut feeling, join the club. I've known people who have a gut feeling that they turn into werewolves in the light of the full moon. There's even some weird cult for them situated up in Ohio somewhere. I don't want to hear what came to you after smoking a few reefers or meditating or whatever it is you do. I want to hear the full story as to what leads you to your conclusions, from start to finish. At least give me the reader's digest version, sheesh. I'm not trying to be offensive. I just need some plausible basis for your beliefs if I'm going to take them seriously.

I place more emphasis on the nature of the conscious observer rather than the empirical data collected and studied via the bodily senses. The reason I do this is because this observer at least seems to be comparatively superior to these senses. For example, I observe that while I am conscious of my bodily sense capacity, my senses cannot experience my conscious being. I don't accept the purview of reality wherein I must presume a material origin exists for consciousness in order to proceed in finding one. I form my conclusions based on what I know as being the knower. I hope that makes sense. This stuff is dealt with in Sankhya philosophy, which is discussed in the text Bhagavad-Gita. I recommend checking it out if you have the means and are interested at least in the philosophical considerations. www.asitis.com is a good website where you can read the whole book or purchase a copy.

 

[Flappycat]

Okay, I can see where things are getting cranky. I consider pure introspection an unreliable method of gaining understanding. I consider the search for understanding an investigative process that requires the sifting and analysis of data that is generally apt to be unreliable, and I place a high priority upon canonization and the elimination of noise.

 

[Paraprakrti]

Cranky? Elimination of noise?

 

[Flappycat]

Cranky? Elimination of noise?

Cranky: confused, particularly as a result of either poor communication or failure in understanding.

Noise: meaningless information. To eliminate noise is to sort meaningful information from meaningless information.

 

[Heracles]

This person has obviously not actually reserched evolution, or at least not enough. If they had, they would have figured out how each part of the tree evolved and from what earlier plants that tree came from. And looking at a tree and determining in that instance that evoltion is false? I can do that too. The theory of gravity for example. So i was outside looking at the clouds. I am well educated in physics. the theory of gravity says basically that what goes up must come down. If that were true, how come the clouds don't fall on the ground. Well, thats it, gravity is a bunch of bull, it is obviously leprechauns who control the sky
and physics.

 

[logician]

Evolution has been proven, having as much evidence supporting it as any theories in the hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, or astronomy. The exact machanics of evolution is always under debate, such as the theory of punctuated equilibria by Gould abd Eldridge, but that evolution occurred is not under debate among scientists.

 

[Runlikethewind]

I would have to agree that often times man does think of God in human terms, anthropomorphism I think its called. In our inability to understand a concept like God we tend to think of God as a thing, we ponder whether or not God or gods or a creator exist thereby seperating God and existence as if existence where a property that God either has or does not have. Ifwhen we think of an eternal creator responsibly for all that exists and is responsible for maintaining that existence, as many religions belive, then we cannot seperate God from existence. We must say that God does not exist, God is existence thereby eliminating the confusion. So even if there is an eternal multiverse (which I think takes about as much faith to believe in as God) then if God is existence then all things that are, including an infinite number of universes, exist because they partake somehow in existence. So beleiving in the existence of an eternal multiverse does not eliminate the need for existence. And with an understanidng of God that is not made in man's image, seperated from existrence that is, then it would seem that the multiverse theory does not eliminate the need for God or a creator in that sense.

 

[JerryL]

Must be whay so many tihng that man was created in God's image... making God manlike.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The Theory of Evolution is False, although some creatures do change over time???:thud:

Then you have some proof to share with us...right???

 

[painted wolf]

I think he's being facitious.

wa:do

 

[XAAX]

Evolution has been proven, having as much evidence supporting it as any theories in the hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, or astronomy. The exact machanics of evolution is always under debate, such as the theory of punctuated equilibria by Gould abd Eldridge, but that evolution occurred is not under debate among scientists.

I think a lot of the argument in this thread stems more from ignorance than anything. Maybe versus limiting using religious text, I should have limited it to educated individuals. It would weed out a lot...

 

[XAAX]

Then you have some proof to share with us...right???

Do not question the uneducated Dre...You really wont like the answers...:no:

 

[Yerda]

Do not question the uneducated Dre...You really wont like the answers...:no:

That's no reason not to ask a question...

 

[Mister_T]

I think a lot of the argument in this thread stems more from ignorance than anything. Maybe versus limiting using religious text, I should have limited it to educated individuals. It would weed out a lot...

So people who believe in a religious text are ignorant and uneducated? Talk about calling the kettle black.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Do not question the uneducated Dre...You really wont like the answers...:no:

Thank you....:yes:

I'll have to remember that in the future....

I was sorta surprised by the statement that "Evolution" is false but creatures do change over time......HMMMMMMMMMMM:sarcastic

Sounds like a pretty good definition of evolution to me..... It sounds as though he believes it but can't believe that he believes it...:sarcastic

Did that make sense????

Either that is it or like you said...."uneducated".........

 

[NZAmish]

Evolution is false, no question about it.
Though there are some people I know who look and act in way that makes me think that it is possible they could have originated from chimps :yes:

 

[camanintx]

Evolution is false, no question about it.

Ancient Chinese Proverb - He who asks a question may be a fool for five minutes; he who asks no questions stays a fool forever.