So you say I don't understand Evolution. Really?

[SomeRandom]

Lets see.
1. It does not have an actual thinking brain! True!
2. It is a force of nature (Natural Selection ie Survival of the Fittest) Yes
3. Forces of Nature don't have actual brains! (Mother Nature etc) True
4.Evolutionist give it credit as if it has the powers of a brain to Design, Engineer and Program etc. Yes you do.
5. Yet, In all of human history and all we see in the world today. Anytime we see Design, Engineering, Programming it always takes Intelligence for it to occur! Yes
6.You say it ALL started with the Big Bang. Therefore all the order, precision, laws of nature, science. math, cosmology and it goes on came ultimately as a result of an explosion energy! (Yet nothing in our experience of today's world do we ever see order, precision etc as a result or aftermath of an explosion of energy!) If so please give me examples other than what you SAY evolution did. But if I go by % of the evidence then explosion of energy doesn't produce order, precision etc. So very illogical and not common sense based on real world experience. I Live in Texas. The explosion in West didn't leave order. Nor did 9/11, nor Oklahoma City bombing and this goes on. Heck the bombing of Japan to end WWII sure didn't either.
7. Computer programming controls the computer and all it does. True. So likewise does DNA/RNA for all of life. Yet you can't explain this. Computer Programs are like language that communicate directions. Have we ever seen anything of a language, esp that complex evolve from simple to complex and esp w/o Intelligent brain behind it. Real life experience tells me NO! Even Darwin in chapter 6 of his book Origins said if ever proven anything was so complex that it couldn't have evolved from simple to complex by evolutionary steps it would disprove his theory. DNA/RNA did that.
8. In real life when we see Design, Engineering, Programming etc we instantly recognize behind it was Intelligence. We don't immediately say, Look what evolved by natural forces w/o a brain directing it.
9. Like my example on the other thread about Mother Nature deciding, which has no brain but is a force of nature, to unite the forces of nature and form the faces on Mt Rushmore. Using rain, wind, erosion etc. It shows design but of course since mother nature has no real brain it couldn't have done it as it requires a brain to design it. Yet real life is much more complex and you say natural forces of evolution out designed, engineered, programmed what man still can't match. Not only that did it before man had "evolved" to the point to even learn about it. Much less study nature and copy it to make life better for mankind.
10. You can take so many processes of life and systems and explain them in depth. Yet you can't take not ONE example of evolution and take it from one species to the next species and explain where it started, the no.of steps it took and what each step it entailed to get there. All the while battling survival of the fittest since after it adapted it was already fittest and had no need to change. To change further put its survival at risk and vulnerable to extinction.
11. Evolutionist own words betray evolution. Quote from Dr. Richard Lewontin A geneticist that is very revealing

‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Sounds like materialism atheism first over good, true, honest, science at all cost.

Stephen J. Gould once admitted, "The history of most fossil species includes... features particularly inconsistent with gradualism..(like) sudden appearance...in any local areas, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors: it appears suddenly all at once and "fully formed". According to Gould, there is no evidence of gradual evolution, since there are no transitional creatures. Species are fully formed when they first appear in the record.

Evolutionist Mark Ridley admitted, "No real scientist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."

Dr Mano Singham an evolutionary college prof in this attached article admits to teaching using brainwashing and propaganda techniques to teach his students. Yet, as all evolutionist do he makes it to be religion vs science. Which I find funny with all the other admissions he made. You will have to open the PDF file to read it.

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/53/6/10.1063/1.1306373

From Physics Today of June 2000

Dr. James Tour, a prof at Rice who specializes in chemistry, nano engineering and computer science said, Despite decades of research into the origin of life, he does not understand how it all could have happened. And when he challenges his peers on the subject, they too sheepishly admit its a mystery. He says: Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science with National Academy members, Nobel prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public, because its a scary thing if you say what I just said. I say, "Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from and how this happened?" The answer I usually get is "No". "Every time I have sat with people who are synthetic chemist, who understand this, They go "Uh-uh, Nope". Dr. Tour said "And if they're afraid to say "yes", they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can't sincerely do it."

See Evolutionist own words betray what evolution really is. Bad science, full of proven frauds etc.

I've exposed it too by my questions that you can't answer. IT proves I actually know it better than you do.

I challenge you to educate me with proof and examples to disprove what I have said.

Your opinion that I don't know what I am talking about means nothing. I have given you points. You MUST disprove my points with provable and proven science. Not just opinion. If you asked evolutionist to explain various bodily or other systems in depth they as could creationist.

We, as does atheist mathematician Fred Hoyle, acknowledge the obvious. Behind it took and demands an Intelligent Designer, Engineer and Programmer etc far above what we are capable of.

That my friends is common sense and logic. Yours takes more faith than I could ever muster. At least I stand on what the world and experience and worlds history tells me.

Plus science is never decided by popular vote. Otherwise the world would still be flat and the earth still the center of this solar system etc.

All that says to me is that Grade 8 Biology students clearly know more about evolution than you do. Heck, kids who watch the children's shows "Backyard Science" or "Brainiacs" (haha I loved that show. Lots of cool explosions) probably know more about the scientific method than you. And that you apparently failed astronomy in school as well (Big Bang did not go "Bang" nor was it an explosion. Anyone over the age of freaking 14 could probably tell you that.)

 

[Parsimony]

If you think that the Big Bang theory, materialism or atheism are parts of evolutionary biology, then you are definitely mistaken about what the theory of evolution actually is.

 

[Sapiens]

If you think that the Big Bang theory, materialism or atheism are parts of evolutionary biology, then you are definitely mistaken about what the theory of evolution actually is.

The thing that unites these disparate items is that thinking educated people who see the sense in one usually see the sense in all of them, those who understand none of them tend to lump them into a non-intellectual terra incognita where there be monsters (from the id).

 

[Mycroft]

Why would anyone make a thread entitled 'So you think I don't understand evolution.' and then spend the whole of your post confirming that suspicion?

 

[Sapiens]

Why would anyone make a thread entitled 'So you think I don't understand evolution.' and then spend the whole of your post confirming that suspicion?

Only a YEC, only a YEC.

 

[Riverwolf]

2. It is a force of nature (Natural Selection ie Survival of the Fittest) Yes

Wrong. "Survival of the fittest" is nonsense that has nothing whatsoever to do with natural selection.

Natural selection is "survival of the one most able to reproduce in a given environment".

With this alone, yes, really, you do not understand biological evolution.

 

[Riverwolf]

3. Forces of Nature don't have actual brains! (Mother Nature etc) True

You know why you call Her "Mother Nature?"

She's a Goddess.

4.Evolutionist give it credit as if it has the powers of a brain to Design, Engineer and Program etc. Yes you do.

No such thing as an "evolutionist". However, those who accept evolution do not do as you suggest.

5. Yet, In all of human history and all we see in the world today. Anytime we see Design, Engineering, Programming it always takes Intelligence for it to occur! Yes

And none of that

6.You say it ALL started with the Big Bang.

Besides having nothing to do with biology, no we don't.

Therefore all the order, precision, laws of nature, science. math, cosmology and it goes on came ultimately as a result of an explosion energy! (Yet nothing in our experience of today's world do we ever see order, precision etc as a result or aftermath of an explosion of energy!) If so please give me examples other than what you SAY evolution did. But if I go by % of the evidence then explosion of energy doesn't produce order, precision etc. So very illogical and not common sense based on real world experience. I Live in Texas. The explosion in West didn't leave order. Nor did 9/11, nor Oklahoma City bombing and this goes on. Heck the bombing of Japan to end WWII sure didn't either.

'Course not. The Big Bang wasn't an explosion. I've seen plenty of scientists call the very term "big bang" an "unfortunate misnomer that causes great confusion."

7. Computer programming controls the computer and all it does. True.

I'm a computer programmer, and let me tell you: this is not entirely accurate. (In other words, false.)

Hardware engineering is the most important part of a computer's actions, not the software. You can code and code and code all you want, but if your program exceeds a given machine's RAM, it's not going to work.

So likewise does DNA/RNA for all of life.

Nope.

Yet you can't explain this.

If that were true, why would it be a problem?

Computer Programs are like language that communicate directions. Have we ever seen anything of a language, esp that complex evolve from simple to complex and esp w/o Intelligent brain behind it. Real life experience tells me NO! Even Darwin in chapter 6 of his book Origins said if ever proven anything was so complex that it couldn't have evolved from simple to complex by evolutionary steps it would disprove his theory. DNA/RNA did that.

Darwin was often wrong, so I've heard. I've never read On the Origin of Species and never intend to.

8. In real life when we see Design, Engineering, Programming etc we instantly recognize behind it was Intelligence. We don't immediately say, Look what evolved by natural forces w/o a brain directing it.

Because none of those things have been observed in nature.

9. Like my example on the other thread about Mother Nature deciding, which has no brain but is a force of nature, to unite the forces of nature and form the faces on Mt Rushmore. Using rain, wind, erosion etc. It shows design but of course since mother nature has no real brain it couldn't have done it as it requires a brain to design it. Yet real life is much more complex and you say natural forces of evolution out designed, engineered, programmed what man still can't match. Not only that did it before man had "evolved" to the point to even learn about it. Much less study nature and copy it to make life better for mankind.

You do realize that from a "design" perspective, things in nature are actually quite poorly designed?

Complexity is the enemy of design. You don't want complex designs. That's why "there's never been a match"; we don't want to match it. That would be bad design.

Unless you actually think 100,000 lines of code is inherently superior to 4,000 lines of code that do the exact same thing.

10. You can take so many processes of life and systems and explain them in depth. Yet you can't take not ONE example of evolution and take it from one species to the next species and explain where it started, the no.of steps it took and what each step it entailed to get there. All the while battling survival of the fittest since after it adapted it was already fittest and had no need to change. To change further put its survival at risk and vulnerable to extinction

Again, "survival of the fittest" is complete nonsense that has nothing whatsoever to do with natural selection.

I can point to you each one of the steps by pointing to you each and every successive generation.

 

[metis]

Do you think maybe it would help if he spelled his own denomination correctly ("Pentacostal" v Pentecostal)?

 

[ttechsan]

Sorry it has taken me awhile to get back to you. I have serious health issues. That is why I am so sporadic on here. I ask your forgiveness on that. It is something I can't help or control. I wish I didn't have these issues. Yet at the same time. I have dedicated them to God's glory and He does that continually. So despite the pain and constant problems, God uses me through it. I wouldn't change that as compared to what He did for me. This is a small cross to bear for Him and it puts me where I can help others I wouldn't meet otherwise. Anyway, here is a response. I hope it helps. But I do want real science answers. I don't and won't respond to just telling me I don't understand evolution. I understand apparently more than evolutionist do. You give it credit for having a brain it doesn't have. The world shows that only brains can Design, Engineer and Program and esp to the intricate precise detail we see. A force of nature, w/o a brain can't possible do that, much less do it better than man can match when we are the top of the "evolutionary" chain. Additionally when I ask you guys to tell me how using your top of the "evolutionary" chains brain, how you would do it? All I get is no real answers and attacks. That shows you have no idea and are covering up you don't know by attacking the other. That is a debate tactic used when the other side has you. Here is my latest.


A problem for evolutionist, esp considering the order you say things evolved. These couldn’t have stayed alive or survived long enough w/o the other due to long time span between! Animals and plants



Visitors to the southwestern United States are often awed by the imposing yucca plant. At its base is a rosette of stiff, sword shaped leaves with a tall stem containing clusters of white, waxy flowers. The yucca plant can only be pollinated by ONE insect, the yucca moth, because the nectar glands can only be reached by the proboscis (sucking mouth part) of this moth. Likewise, the yucca moth requires the yucca plant for its reproductive cycle and for food.

When the moth visits the yucca flower it collects pollen and carries the tiny pollen balls from plant to plant. After the female lays her four to five eggs in the yucca flower’s ovary, she deposits her pollen ball on the tip of the flower’s pistil, thus pollinating the yucca flower. The seeds then start developing at the same time the moth larvae develop. The seeds are the only source of food for the larvae. These seeds were made possible only by the pollen the female moth had earlier deposited. The larvae eat about half of the 200 seeds produced. The yucca plant could not survive without the yucca moth, and the yucca moth could not survive without the yucca plant.

If evolution were true, which came first? Both the yucca plant and the yucca moth had to be fully functioning from the beginning for this complex symbiotic relationship. God displays creativity in what He has made because He wants His existence apparent to all.



Now look at the order of evolutionary creation and the time lapses between, esp plants and land animals, insects. (Houston we have a problem!) It can’t possibly work.

I’ve shown you a symbiotic between a plant and a animal. So since man is the top of the evolutionary chain and we have an actual thinking brain and evolution doesn’t. Surely, with that brain you can explain how YOU would do it so both survive despite the evolutionary time gap and how they would have to evolve next to one another when this whole earth is its stage.

The math odds are so astronomical against this. Not only due to the evolutionary order of creation but since they would have to evolve right next to one another for them to survive. That situation is true for so many other creatures of creation, animals and plants. Yet evolutionist can’t begin to tell me how with their “evolved” brain how to do what a non brain force of evolution did w/o a brain. To top it off I am told I don’t understand evolution. No, I understand that you give it credit for a brain it doesn’t possess and you evolutionist still can’t describe anything by a step by step order by detail of each step and the number of steps to get from one to another. Yet you say that is science. When science is describing things in real detail, like all the bodily systems. The systems in nature with plants and it goes on and on.

I’m the one using my logical brain and common sense to recognize what you refuse to recognize. It took a power, brain to Design, Engineer, Program etc far beyond what man still can’t match, what we see in this world that has been created.

You can give me empty words that I don’t understand. But until you can actually answer my questions and give me detailed information like if I asked you the steps of Photosynthesis or how various systems of the body worked. See those you could do. When I ask a simple question. Give me just ONE example of evolution from one species to the next higher order species step by step in order and explain each step. If not then tell me how you would do it with your “evolved” brain w/o the extinction of whatever we are discussing. You instead of answering to cover up that you can’t. You attack me as if I don’t understand. Problem really is I do understand it. I understand and have exposed the problems that you fail to acknowledge.

Come back to me when you can actually answer with proven science and not just so stories!

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Visitors to the southwestern United States are often awed by the imposing yucca plant. At its base is a rosette of stiff, sword shaped leaves with a tall stem containing clusters of white, waxy flowers. The yucca plant can only be pollinated by ONE insect, the yucca moth, because the nectar glands can only be reached by the proboscis (sucking mouth part) of this moth. Likewise, the yucca moth requires the yucca plant for its reproductive cycle and for food.

When the moth visits the yucca flower it collects pollen and carries the tiny pollen balls from plant to plant. After the female lays her four to five eggs in the yucca flower’s ovary, she deposits her pollen ball on the tip of the flower’s pistil, thus pollinating the yucca flower. The seeds then start developing at the same time the moth larvae develop. The seeds are the only source of food for the larvae. These seeds were made possible only by the pollen the female moth had earlier deposited. The larvae eat about half of the 200 seeds produced. The yucca plant could not survive without the yucca moth, and the yucca moth could not survive without the yucca plant.

If evolution were true, which came first? Both the yucca plant and the yucca moth had to be fully functioning from the beginning for this complex symbiotic relationship. God displays creativity in what He has made because He wants His existence apparent to all.

What do you mean by the long times between? At any given point in time a species has already adapted and evolved for its current environment. Any changes made that bring it to its current from may not have dictated what was required prior to that.

For the yucca plant and yucca moth the only explanation is that they evolved together. The plants that did not allow Yucca moth's in would have died off leaving only yucca plants that allow the moth. And the moth would have evolved where the ones not able to reach down to the plant's nectar would die. Many many years ago before they were the yucca plant and moth they would have had qualities that would have allowed them to exist with other plants and animals. This symbiotic relationship developed over time from a broad to specialized relationship.

Now look at the order of evolutionary creation and the time lapses between, esp plants and land animals, insects. (Houston we have a problem!) It can’t possibly work.

In what way? And what time lapses do you mean?

I’ve shown you a symbiotic between a plant and a animal. So since man is the top of the evolutionary chain and we have an actual thinking brain and evolution doesn’t. Surely, with that brain you can explain how YOU would do it so both survive despite the evolutionary time gap and how they would have to evolve next to one another when this whole earth is its stage.

Again I am confused as to what you mean. Plants don't need animals. Some do but in the broad sense they do not. In fact plants existed far before animals. There existed consumers prior to animals and they don't have to exclusively eat plants though most did.

The math odds are so astronomical against this. Not only due to the evolutionary order of creation but since they would have to evolve right next to one another for them to survive. That situation is true for so many other creatures of creation, animals and plants. Yet evolutionist can’t begin to tell me how with their “evolved” brain how to do what a non brain force of evolution did w/o a brain. To top it off I am told I don’t understand evolution. No, I understand that you give it credit for a brain it doesn’t possess and you evolutionist still can’t describe anything by a step by step order by detail of each step and the number of steps to get from one to another. Yet you say that is science. When science is describing things in real detail, like all the bodily systems. The systems in nature with plants and it goes on and on.

I would like to see the math. Because it wasn't that they "just so happen" to evolve right next to each other. They evolved next to each other because of their shared ecosystem.

I’m the one using my logical brain and common sense to recognize what you refuse to recognize. It took a power, brain to Design, Engineer, Program etc far beyond what man still can’t match, what we see in this world that has been created.

Your common sense doesn't dictate fact. Fact should dictate common sense. Counter-intuitive discoveries are not inherently wrong. Our common sense is inherently wrong in these situations. In fact it is usually wrong.

You can give me empty words that I don’t understand. But until you can actually answer my questions and give me detailed information like if I asked you the steps of Photosynthesis or how various systems of the body worked. See those you could do. When I ask a simple question. Give me just ONE example of evolution from one species to the next higher order species step by step in order and explain each step. If not then tell me how you would do it with your “evolved” brain w/o the extinction of whatever we are discussing. You instead of answering to cover up that you can’t. You attack me as if I don’t understand. Problem really is I do understand it. I understand and have exposed the problems that you fail to acknowledge.

I can give you several. Though what do you mean 'higher order"? Homo-erectus and homo-habillis are both direct ancestors to modern humans. They went to a "higher order" if you feel humans are superior to them.

Come back to me when you can actually answer with proven science and not just so stories!

Sure. Anything you need just ask for it.

 

[shawn001]

Lets see.
1. It does not have an actual thinking brain! True!
2. It is a force of nature (Natural Selection ie Survival of the Fittest) Yes
3. Forces of Nature don't have actual brains! (Mother Nature etc) True
4.Evolutionist give it credit as if it has the powers of a brain to Design, Engineer and Program etc. Yes you do.
5. Yet, In all of human history and all we see in the world today. Anytime we see Design, Engineering, Programming it always takes Intelligence for it to occur! Yes
6.You say it ALL started with the Big Bang. Therefore all the order, precision, laws of nature, science. math, cosmology and it goes on came ultimately as a result of an explosion energy! (Yet nothing in our experience of today's world do we ever see order, precision etc as a result or aftermath of an explosion of energy!) If so please give me examples other than what you SAY evolution did. But if I go by % of the evidence then explosion of energy doesn't produce order, precision etc. So very illogical and not common sense based on real world experience. I Live in Texas. The explosion in West didn't leave order. Nor did 9/11, nor Oklahoma City bombing and this goes on. Heck the bombing of Japan to end WWII sure didn't either.
7. Computer programming controls the computer and all it does. True. So likewise does DNA/RNA for all of life. Yet you can't explain this. Computer Programs are like language that communicate directions. Have we ever seen anything of a language, esp that complex evolve from simple to complex and esp w/o Intelligent brain behind it. Real life experience tells me NO! Even Darwin in chapter 6 of his book Origins said if ever proven anything was so complex that it couldn't have evolved from simple to complex by evolutionary steps it would disprove his theory. DNA/RNA did that.
8. In real life when we see Design, Engineering, Programming etc we instantly recognize behind it was Intelligence. We don't immediately say, Look what evolved by natural forces w/o a brain directing it.
9. Like my example on the other thread about Mother Nature deciding, which has no brain but is a force of nature, to unite the forces of nature and form the faces on Mt Rushmore. Using rain, wind, erosion etc. It shows design but of course since mother nature has no real brain it couldn't have done it as it requires a brain to design it. Yet real life is much more complex and you say natural forces of evolution out designed, engineered, programmed what man still can't match. Not only that did it before man had "evolved" to the point to even learn about it. Much less study nature and copy it to make life better for mankind.
10. You can take so many processes of life and systems and explain them in depth. Yet you can't take not ONE example of evolution and take it from one species to the next species and explain where it started, the no.of steps it took and what each step it entailed to get there. All the while battling survival of the fittest since after it adapted it was already fittest and had no need to change. To change further put its survival at risk and vulnerable to extinction.
11. Evolutionist own words betray evolution. Quote from Dr. Richard Lewontin A geneticist that is very revealing

‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

Sounds like materialism atheism first over good, true, honest, science at all cost.

Stephen J. Gould once admitted, "The history of most fossil species includes... features particularly inconsistent with gradualism..(like) sudden appearance...in any local areas, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors: it appears suddenly all at once and "fully formed". According to Gould, there is no evidence of gradual evolution, since there are no transitional creatures. Species are fully formed when they first appear in the record.

Evolutionist Mark Ridley admitted, "No real scientist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."

Dr Mano Singham an evolutionary college prof in this attached article admits to teaching using brainwashing and propaganda techniques to teach his students. Yet, as all evolutionist do he makes it to be religion vs science. Which I find funny with all the other admissions he made. You will have to open the PDF file to read it.

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/53/6/10.1063/1.1306373

From Physics Today of June 2000

Dr. James Tour, a prof at Rice who specializes in chemistry, nano engineering and computer science said, Despite decades of research into the origin of life, he does not understand how it all could have happened. And when he challenges his peers on the subject, they too sheepishly admit its a mystery. He says: Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science with National Academy members, Nobel prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public, because its a scary thing if you say what I just said. I say, "Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from and how this happened?" The answer I usually get is "No". "Every time I have sat with people who are synthetic chemist, who understand this, They go "Uh-uh, Nope". Dr. Tour said "And if they're afraid to say "yes", they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can't sincerely do it."

See Evolutionist own words betray what evolution really is. Bad science, full of proven frauds etc.

I've exposed it too by my questions that you can't answer. IT proves I actually know it better than you do.

I challenge you to educate me with proof and examples to disprove what I have said.

Your opinion that I don't know what I am talking about means nothing. I have given you points. You MUST disprove my points with provable and proven science. Not just opinion. If you asked evolutionist to explain various bodily or other systems in depth they as could creationist.

We, as does atheist mathematician Fred Hoyle, acknowledge the obvious. Behind it took and demands an Intelligent Designer, Engineer and Programmer etc far above what we are capable of.

That my friends is common sense and logic. Yours takes more faith than I could ever muster. At least I stand on what the world and experience and worlds history tells me.

Plus science is never decided by popular vote. Otherwise the world would still be flat and the earth still the center of this solar system etc.

I didn't read any further then this.

"You say it ALL started with the Big Bang. Therefore all the order, precision, laws of nature, science. math, cosmology and it goes on came ultimately as a result of an explosion energy! (Yet nothing in our experience of today's world do we ever see order, precision etc as a result or aftermath of an explosion of energy!) If so please give me examples"

The Big Bang was NOT an explosion.

But to give you one example the moon formed as a result of an explosion a collision with Earth with a planet the size of Mars. The Sun also ignited with nuclear fusion.

 

[ttechsan]

In evolution, the time gap between plants and land animals is great. It is so great that, esp since it takes to long for each species to evolve from another also. The plant or animal couldn't survive w/o the other considering the time frame it would need to wait for the other to evolve for it to survive since it needs both for survival.
So you look it up and tell me evolutions time frame between plants and this animal. You will find there is too much time for it to survive before the other evolved. Plus you still must answer the mathematical odds of how they did it right next to one another when the whole planet is where the other could have evolved. Evolution has no brain to design or organize this so it can happen that way. Evolutionist act like it does but it has no brain any more than Mother Nature does. That is why I give that example of Mother Nature using forces of nature to form the faces on Mt Rushmore. They show design etc. Yet they are not life itself, which is much more complex. We know that took human brains and intelligence to design etc. Mother Nature couldn't do it as it has no brain. Yet evolutionist try to sell me that evolution can produce all we see in creation that has so much intricate precise Design, Engineering, Programming etc and all w/o an actual brain. That is like telling me Mother Nature did it or formed the faces on Mt Rushmore.

It only takes logic and common sense to see through that. Not counting the math odds. Which is why I quote the atheist mathematician Fred Hoyle. He is atheist, evolutionist and renowned mathematician. So he is one of you. Problem is he admits it is mathematically impossible for evolution and he admits it HAD to have intelligence behind it. Otherwise it couldn't have happened. But to ignore God he goes to outer space to get his intelligent source. I find that very significant and bad science too!

There is proof of so much proven fraud in evolution. Not only that it is still used in texts to teach the "fact" of evolution. So the fact of evolution is having to use proven "frauds" to teach its fact. Wow and that is good science.

What does it take to wake people up? The pillars used to teach evolution as fact are proven frauds. The quotes of evolutionist themselves betray evolution. Yet people still hang on to it as truth. Sadly, despite when you get exposed to the problems and what you can't answer. You attack the messenger and not those that defrauded you originally. I find that extremely sad.

You have the right to do as you do. Yet don't claim I don't know evolution when I know about the proven frauds that are used to teach you it is "fact". I know the holes in it. I prove it by my questions that you can't answer. I give you personal examples and you can't answer. You can't give me ONE proven example from start to finish of evolution in action of each step. What each step entailed and how many it took to go from whatever to whatever it became. Evolution is always taught by inference and just so stories. Real science is taught by specifics and detailed steps it can explain.

That is why they don't want its problems taught and exposed in teaching. Because they know if taught side by side it can't stand the scrutiny. It isn't religion vs science. It is good vs bad science. It is logic and common sense to acknowledge it took something far greater than what we have and can explain. You can still be a committed atheist as Fred Hoyle shows you. But at least he is honest in admitting it takes an intelligent source far greater than a non thinking non brain of natural force called evolution, as mother nature couldn't either.

My goal is to get you to really start thinking for yourself. I read where one professor said. His job, since college students aren't capable of thinking for themselves and going through the information and coming to the correct conclusion, is to TEACH THEM WHAT TO THINK NOT HOW TO THINK!

What an insult. But is does show you the objective of evolutionary teaching and why they fight so hard against ever letting any of its problems and frauds being exposed to students. It is where they mold and brainwash students, with inference, not real science as I've discussed already, and just so stories, to atheism and use evolution as their evangelist tool to do so.

Please, let what I am writing open your mind and thinking and become open to logic and common sense to what has happened to you.

 

[ttechsan]

I will copy and paste some definitions of Big Bang for you.

Word Origin and History for big bang theory



hypothetical explosive beginning of the universe, developed from the work of Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître and George Gamow, the name first attested 1950 (said to have been used orally 1949) by British astronomer Fred Hoyle (1915-2001) in an attempt to explain the idea in laymen's terms.

big bang theory in Science

big bang

(bĭg)
The explosion of an extremely small, hot, and dense body of matter that, according to some cosmological theories, gave rise to the universe between 12 and 20 billion years ago. Compare big crunch, steady state theory. See also open universe.

So these are definitions I got from the internet. I seem to read the word or form of explosion in both. So it seems my explanation fits quite well with these definitions.
Regardless, My point is still much bigger than that. I will stand on what I said. No explosion or whatever term you want to use, ever produces intricate, precise order, design etc. Much less how could it produce the Laws of Nature, Science, Cosmology etc. What is really funny to me. Those laws are so set as they must be for us to live. Yet evolution is constant change. So why don't those laws change or "evolve" too? If they did of course we would all perish.

Evolution has so many illogical holes it amazes me how people fall for it if you actually think and analyze it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

In evolution, the time gap between plants and land animals is great. It is so great that, esp since it takes to long for each species to evolve from another also. The plant or animal couldn't survive w/o the other considering the time frame it would need to wait for the other to evolve for it to survive since it needs both for survival.

Why do you think plants need animals to survive?

So you look it up and tell me evolutions time frame between plants and this animal. You will find there is too much time for it to survive before the other evolved. Plus you still must answer the mathematical odds of how they did it right next to one another when the whole planet is where the other could have evolved. Evolution has no brain to design or organize this so it can happen that way. Evolutionist act like it does but it has no brain any more than Mother Nature does. That is why I give that example of Mother Nature using forces of nature to form the faces on Mt Rushmore. They show design etc. Yet they are not life itself, which is much more complex. We know that took human brains and intelligence to design etc. Mother Nature couldn't do it as it has no brain. Yet evolutionist try to sell me that evolution can produce all we see in creation that has so much intricate precise Design, Engineering, Programming etc and all w/o an actual brain. That is like telling me Mother Nature did it or formed the faces on Mt Rushmore.

Plants and animals evolved as two different species. But lets not forget fungus. What about bacteria? There are several other kingdoms.

It only takes logic and common sense to see through that. Not counting the math odds. Which is why I quote the atheist mathematician Fred Hoyle. He is atheist, evolutionist and renowned mathematician. So he is one of you. Problem is he admits it is mathematically impossible for evolution and he admits it HAD to have intelligence behind it. Otherwise it couldn't have happened. But to ignore God he goes to outer space to get his intelligent source. I find that very significant and bad science too!

False. On all accounts nearly. The science behind it is solid. If it goes against your presuppositions about the universe then that is your issue.

There is proof of so much proven fraud in evolution. Not only that it is still used in texts to teach the "fact" of evolution. So the fact of evolution is having to use proven "frauds" to teach its fact. Wow and that is good science.

Also false. Could I get some examples?

What does it take to wake people up? The pillars used to teach evolution as fact are proven frauds. The quotes of evolutionist themselves betray evolution. Yet people still hang on to it as truth. Sadly, despite when you get exposed to the problems and what you can't answer. You attack the messenger and not those that defrauded you originally. I find that extremely sad.

I often ask what it takes to wake up a creationist. I hope one day I can find that answer.

You have the right to do as you do. Yet don't claim I don't know evolution when I know about the proven frauds that are used to teach you it is "fact". I know the holes in it. I prove it by my questions that you can't answer. I give you personal examples and you can't answer. You can't give me ONE proven example from start to finish of evolution in action of each step. What each step entailed and how many it took to go from whatever to whatever it became. Evolution is always taught by inference and just so stories. Real science is taught by specifics and detailed steps it can explain.

The reason why you were probably told you don't understand the science is because you have provided profound evidence that you don't. Claims that don't make much sense or are factually wrong are usually good indicators that you don't understand evolution or WORSE you understand something you call evolution that is wrong. And now you are sure you are correct when you are not.

That is why they don't want its problems taught and exposed in teaching. Because they know if taught side by side it can't stand the scrutiny. It isn't religion vs science. It is good vs bad science. It is logic and common sense to acknowledge it took something far greater than what we have and can explain. You can still be a committed atheist as Fred Hoyle shows you. But at least he is honest in admitting it takes an intelligent source far greater than a non thinking non brain of natural force called evolution, as mother nature couldn't either.

Except the math doesn't say its impossible. The math says its probable that it has happened elsewhere in the universe as well.
[quoted]
My goal is to get you to really start thinking for yourself. I read where one professor said. His job, since college students aren't capable of thinking for themselves and going through the information and coming to the correct conclusion, is to TEACH THEM WHAT TO THINK NOT HOW TO THINK![/quote]
That is really good advice. I hope you can take it and start to question some of your own beliefs. I don't want to take away your belief in god but your belief in creationism that runs counter to evolution and other established scientific facts.

What an insult. But is does show you the objective of evolutionary teaching and why they fight so hard against ever letting any of its problems and frauds being exposed to students. It is where they mold and brainwash students, with inference, not real science as I've discussed already, and just so stories, to atheism and use evolution as their evangelist tool to do so.

I have had a haphazard education on evolution till I was in college. The high school system dilutes evolution to its basic and most bare bones approach. I really learned about evolution in college biology courses for the first time and from there my own personal research once I became scientifically literate to understand what some of the papers mean. You really won't understand evolution until you reach that level of scientific literacy and are able to read the papers themselves from archives or publications. I am still not a the point I would like to be but I'm getting there.

Please, let what I am writing open your mind and thinking and become open to logic and common sense to what has happened to you.

I have kept an open mind but you haven't actually given me any evidence. You have a made a lot of claims but no real evidence has been provided. Much of what you have said isn't new. Its already debunked or re-hashed by other creationists and it isn't convincing. It isn't through any brainwashing but simply a lack of evidence.

 

[Ouroboros]

I will copy and paste some definitions of Big Bang for you.

Word Origin and History for big bang theory



hypothetical explosive beginning of the universe, developed from the work of Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître and George Gamow, the name first attested 1950 (said to have been used orally 1949) by British astronomer Fred Hoyle (1915-2001) in an attempt to explain the idea in laymen's terms.

big bang theory in Science

big bang

(bĭg)
The explosion of an extremely small, hot, and dense body of matter that, according to some cosmological theories, gave rise to the universe between 12 and 20 billion years ago. Compare big crunch, steady state theory. See also open universe.

So these are definitions I got from the internet. I seem to read the word or form of explosion in both. So it seems my explanation fits quite well with these definitions.
Regardless, My point is still much bigger than that. I will stand on what I said. No explosion or whatever term you want to use, ever produces intricate, precise order, design etc. Much less how could it produce the Laws of Nature, Science, Cosmology etc. What is really funny to me. Those laws are so set as they must be for us to live. Yet evolution is constant change. So why don't those laws change or "evolve" too? If they did of course we would all perish.

Evolution has so many illogical holes it amazes me how people fall for it if you actually think and analyze it.

Both explanations you found are wrong. The etymology database or dictionary are not good sources for explaining the scientific meaning of scientific concepts.

Wiki:

The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the physical distance between two comoving points. In other words, the Big Bang is not an explosion in space, but rather an expansion of space.[4] Because the FLRW metric assumes a uniform distribution of mass and energy, it applies to our universe only on large scales—local concentrations of matter such as our galaxy are gravitationally bound and as such do not experience the large-scale expansion of space.[39]

I can easily find a large number of pages and websites, even from universities, supporting that the Big Bang was *NOT* an explosion, regardless of what the people who wrote the dictionary thinks. Ask the scientists, not the word-wranglers.

I actually have talked to real scientists regarding this matter. Was it an explosion or not? And I got a strongly resounding, unified, unequivocal answer that it was *not* an explosion.

So go, do the same, as a scientist instead of some online dictionary.

Or you're just digging your hole deeper...

 

[Parsimony]

The Common Sense Fallacy | Cork Skeptics

 

[Sapiens]

In evolution, the time gap between plants and land animals is great. It is so great that, esp since it takes to long for each species to evolve from another also. The plant or animal couldn't survive w/o the other considering the time frame it would need to wait for the other to evolve for it to survive since it needs both for survival.

You need to spend some time reading about "coevolution."

So you look it up and tell me evolutions time frame between plants and this animal. You will find there is too much time for it to survive before the other evolved.

No, that is not the case, you don't understand the process and thus are making a singularly weak strawman argument out of your ignorance.

Plus you still must answer the mathematical odds of how they did it right next to one another when the whole planet is where the other could have evolved.

Plants came first, they have to, there was no oxygen to speak of. Then animals. I see no problem here, animals spread out to where they could, ate what they would and as populations were separated they evolved into different taxa over time. No confusion, no big deal.

Evolution has no brain to design or organize this so it can happen that way. Evolutionist act like it does but it has no brain any more than Mother Nature does.

No brain needed, just natural selection and time.

That is why I give that example of Mother Nature using forces of nature to form the faces on Mt Rushmore. They show design etc. Yet they are not life itself, which is much more complex. We know that took human brains and intelligence to design etc. Mother Nature couldn't do it as it has no brain. Yet evolutionist try to sell me that evolution can produce all we see in creation that has so much intricate precise Design, Engineering, Programming etc and all w/o an actual brain. That is like telling me Mother Nature did it or formed the faces on Mt Rushmore.

The error in your thinking has already been pointed out to you, in some detail. Your inability to use the offered wisdom to modify your world view only speaks to your monomaniacal fanaticism on the subject.

It only takes logic and common sense to see through that. Not counting the math odds. Which is why I quote the atheist mathematician Fred Hoyle. He is atheist, evolutionist and renowned mathematician. So he is one of you. Problem is he admits it is mathematically impossible for evolution and he admits it HAD to have intelligence behind it. Otherwise it couldn't have happened. But to ignore God he goes to outer space to get his intelligent source. I find that very significant and bad science too!

Hoyle was simply wrong. He is not "one of us," hell, he was not even a biologist. He, like you, as attracted to the logical fallacy or false analogy. (see: Hoyle's fallacy). Shall we say that Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church is "one of you?"

There is proof of so much proven fraud in evolution.

There is? With the exception of Piltdown Man, a fraud more swallowed by a public longing to have the first "human" be a white Englishman than by the scientific community of the time, what fraud?

Not only that it is still used in texts to teach the "fact" of evolution. So the fact of evolution is having to use proven "frauds" to teach its fact. Wow and that is good science.

Again, what fraud?

What does it take to wake people up? The pillars used to teach evolution as fact are proven frauds.

Unsupported and slanderous claim.

The quotes of evolutionist themselves betray evolution.

Unsupported and slanderous claim.

Yet people still hang on to it as truth.

Unsupported and slanderous claim.

Sadly, despite when you get exposed to the problems and what you can't answer. You attack the messenger and not those that defrauded you originally.

Unsupported and slanderous claim.

I find that extremely sad.

What I find sad is your inability to differentiate between solidly supported research and fairy tales.

You have the right to do as you do. Yet don't claim I don't know evolution when I know about the proven frauds that are used to teach you it is "fact".

I don't need to make that claim, you trumpet that fact that you don't know Jack with every post.

I know the holes in it. I prove it by my questions that you can't answer. I give you personal examples and you can't answer.

You have done nothing of the sort.

You can't give me ONE proven example from start to finish of evolution in action of each step.

There are many well documented examples of evolution: Examples of Evolution. Further use of this claim with prior specific refutation of the examples provided will be seen for what it is, craven intellectual laziness and lies.

What each step entailed and how many it took to go from whatever to whatever it became. Evolution is always taught by inference and just so stories. Real science is taught by specifics and detailed steps it can explain.

A geat deal of real science in done by inference. Here is a book you should read: Teaching About How Scientists Make Inferences. It is written at a "Guided Reading Level" so if you have trouble comprehending anything, just post and I'll be glad to help. Don't forget what Yogi Berra said on the subject, "You can observe a lot just by watching."

That is why they don't want its problems taught and exposed in teaching. Because they know if taught side by side it can't stand the scrutiny.

I am led to wonder who the "they" in this great conspiracy and massive coverup is. I've been a scientist for my entire life, as were my parents and two of my grandparents ... don't you think that by this time I'd know where the treehouse is and that I'd have been taught the secret handshake?

It isn't religion vs science. It is good vs bad science. It is logic and common sense to acknowledge it took something far greater than what we have and can explain.

Naw ... it's your bizarre view of bronze age mythology stacked up against all of modern biological science. You lose.

You can still be a committed atheist as Fred Hoyle shows you. But at least he is honest in admitting it takes an intelligent source far greater than a non thinking non brain of natural force called evolution, as mother nature couldn't either.

Hoyle was an astrophysicist, he made great contributions to that field, especially in the area of the evolution of heavy elements. He was not a biologist and he loved to take far out positions because of the attention it brought to him. He had championed wacky ideas that more often than not turned out to be wrong, such as steady state theory, panspermia, the idea that flu epidemics are caused by sunspots, the idea that Archaeopteryx was a fake, the theory of abiogenic petroleum, and a theory that he'd lifted from Gerald Hawkins that the Aubrey holes at Stonehenge were used by ancient Britons to predict eclipses. He was fun and he was a "nut," but he really is not someone whom you should turn to in an appeal to authority concerning Darwinian and post-Darwinian thinking.

My goal is to get you to really start thinking for yourself. I read where one professor said. His job, since college students aren't capable of thinking for themselves and going through the information and coming to the correct conclusion, is to TEACH THEM WHAT TO THINK NOT HOW TO THINK!

What you were reading was a physics professor, who also is an expert in teaching theory, in a piece he wrote about teaching theory complaining about how physics had to taught due to mass of information, the time available and the weakness of the students' backgrounds. Might I point out that there are schools (like St. Johns) where this is not the case.

What an insult.

Before you try to climb up on a high horse and do a face plant instead you might actually read the paper with an eye to understanding it rather than a plan to quote mine it.

But is does show you the objective of evolutionary teaching and why they fight so hard against ever letting any of its problems and frauds being exposed to students.

What that paper has to do with the teaching of biological sciences that have no where near the demand for mathematical preparation is beyond me.

It is where they mold and brainwash students, with inference, not real science as I've discussed already, and just so stories, to atheism and use evolution as their evangelist tool to do so.

Let's try to not bloviate quite so hard. If you have a case make it, I see no examples of fraud or brainwashing.

Please, let what I am writing open your mind and thinking and become open to logic and common sense to what has happened to you.

Then make a case for your views rather than leading with such a poor attempt at critiquing what you do not agree with and thus have refused to ever learn at the level required for insightful dialectic.

 

[outhouse]

A problem for evolutionist

LOL

You think you creating mental hurdles for yourself, slows down anyone but you?


EVOLUTION IS FACT.

Nothing you say helps anyone, not even yourself.

 

[David M]

In evolution, the time gap between plants and land animals is great.

Do you really think that species such as the Yucca have been around since the time of the very first plants? Ferns are a fairly early group of land plant, they evolved at least 360 million years ago and most species still do not need animals to reproduce.

The evidence is that the first land plants reproduced using spores, so no seeds and no need for pollination.

There is proof of so much proven fraud in evolution. Not only that it is still used in texts to teach the "fact" of evolution. So the fact of evolution is having to use proven "frauds" to teach its fact. Wow and that is good science.

What "Frauds", name them or retract this claim.

Evolution is a fact. Allele frequencies change in populations over time, that is the definition of evolution and its a fact.

 

[Riverwolf]

Sorry it has taken me awhile to get back to you. I have serious health issues.

I wish you good health.

I will copy and paste some definitions of Big Bang for you.

Word Origin and History for big bang theory



hypothetical explosive beginning of the universe, developed from the work of Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître and George Gamow, the name first attested 1950 (said to have been used orally 1949) by British astronomer Fred Hoyle (1915-2001) in an attempt to explain the idea in laymen's terms.

And the attempt led to a misunderstanding, it would seem, that has persisted to this day.

big bang theory in Science

big bang

(bĭg)
The explosion of an extremely small, hot, and dense body of matter that, according to some cosmological theories, gave rise to the universe between 12 and 20 billion years ago. Compare big crunch, steady state theory. See also open universe.

Someone seriously needs to update that dictionary, because it's wrong.

So these are definitions I got from the internet.

I've got you a better one:

Specifically, "...Big Bang is a horrible name. It would be much more accurate to call it the "everywhere stretch, because one of the most common misconceptions about the Big Bang is that it implies that the entire universe was compressed into a single point, from which it then somehow expanded into the surrounding... nothingness." This is about 1 minute into this 5 minute video.

You're asking for "science", but you continuously demonstrate that you don't know what "science" even is.