The Lie of Evolution and the Stupidity of Those Who Believe in It

[Dan From Smithville]

As to what do you think my name
FaithofChristian means ?

It should mean you have faith, belief without evidence for that belief. What you intend it to mean, I couldn't guess.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My belief comes from Christ Jesus alone and no one else.
My verifiable evidence all lays within the bible.but seeing how people can not handle it
Is no fault of mine.

So you have no evidence, just belief. That is what I figured, but the way fundamentalist redefine terms, it is difficult to know.

 

[Etritonakin]

CREATION VERSUS EVOLUTION.


The Introduction to Genesis (and to the whole Bible) Gen. 1:1-2:3, ascribes everything to the living God, creating, making, acting, moving, and speaking. There is no room for evolution without a flat denial of Divine revelation. One must be true, the other false. All God's works were pronounced "good" seven times . Gen. 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31. They are "great," Ps. 111:2. Rev. 15:3. They are "wondrous," Job 37:14. They are "perfect," Deut. 32:4.

Man starts from nothing. He begins in helplessness, ignorance, and inexperience. All his works, therefore, proceed on the principle of evolution. This principle is seen only in human affairs: from the hut to the palace; from the canoe to the ocean liner; from the spade and ploughshare to machines for drilling, reaping, and binding, &c. But the birds build their nests to-day as at the beginning. The moment we pass the boundary line, and enter the Divine sphere, no trace or vestige of evolution is seen. There is growth and development within, but no passing, change, or evolution out from one into another. On the other hand, all God's works are perfect.

In the Introduction to Genesis (ch. 1:1-2:3) forty-six times everything is ascribed to direct acts and volitions on the part of God as the Creator.



God (or He) created
6 times
1:1, 21, 27, 27, 27; 2:3
God moved
1 once
1:2
God said
10 times
1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26, 28, 29
God saw
7 times
1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31
God divided
2 twice
1:4, 7
God (or He) called
5 times
1:5, 5, 8, 10, 10
God (or He) made
7 times
1:7, 16, 25, 31; 2:2, 2, 3
God set
1 once
1:17
God blessed
3 times
1:22, 28; 2:3
God ended
1 once
2:2
God rested
2 twice
2:2, 3
He sanctified
1 once
2:3

It will be noted that the word "God" (Elohim.) occurs in this Introduction thirty-five times (7 x 5), the product of 7 and 5, the numbers of spiritual perfection, and grace.

There are also ten words connected with the word "God"; this is the number of ordinal perfection

There is only one verb used alone with the pronoun "He", instead of "God", and that is the verb "rested". This makes eleven in all; for the significance of which.

The word "and" is repeated 102 times: thus by the figure Polysyndeton marking and emphasizing each separate act as being equally independent and important.

Evolution is only one of several theories invented to explain the phenomena of created things. It is admitted by all scientists that no one of these theories covers all the ground; and the greatest claim made for Evolution, or Darwinism, is that "it covers more ground than any of the others."

The Word of God claims to cover all the ground: and the only way in which this claim is met, is by a denial of the inspiration of the Scriptures, in order to weaken it. This is the special work undertaken by the so-called "Higher Criticism", which bases its conclusions on human assumptions and reasoning, instead of on the documen 4e tary evidence of manuscripts, and Textual Criticism does.

You are (seemingly) not considering that DNA-based evolution could have been created -and intended before the formation of the elements (or acknowledging that Genesis does not describe the very beginning of all physical things -except in the first sentence -the rest is not the very beginning, but what took place after the earth HAD BECOME waste and ruin).
The bible does make some statements -but does not include much detail -and people make many assumptions.
Automated systems are not proof that creation did not take place -and would actually require a higher level of creative ability.

Furthermore... in the broadest sense of the word, the God of the bible is certainly described as one who has "evolved" -being the first and last, that which was, is and will be, etc.

It is written that the things of God are apparent in what was made.
It is absolutely correct to say that creativity was necessary for the present state of things -but evolution and creativity cannot be separated -and it may be that pure evolution is more true of God himself than his creation. Development from the most simple state of the sum of all things would actually explain Godlike position and abilities.
An eternal God could also not possibly be responsible for that which allows for his own existence.
He would simply be -but would also be dynamic.

The fact that God created us is actually evidence of his "evolution" -in the broadest sense of the word.

 

[dfnj]

Evolution doesn't cover abiogenesis.

The Universe is about realizing the most unimaginable possibilities. After millions of years and trillions of bubbles occurring in primordial soup had to exist before the first single cell life came into existence. If you buy enough lottery tickets you will eventually win. Life is a winning lottery ticket. The mind simply cannot comprehend the number of lottery tickets purchased before abiogenesis occurred.

 

[dfnj]

As a student of mathematics I have to point out a semantic error you made. Nothing in science is ever proven, and most people have a poor understanding of what a rigorous "proof" actually is. In fact, there is no such thing as a "proof" of anything in the physical world. But in any case, I agree with you overall. Of course there are mountains of evidence for evolution, and thus the need for creationist propaganda due to the fact that evolution so strongly conflicts with core Christian beliefs.

Nicely said. Reminds me of this quote:

“If you wish to see the truth… then hold no opinions.” The Buddha

 

[Misunderstood]

You are (seemingly) not considering that DNA-based evolution could have been created -and intended before the formation of the elements (or acknowledging that Genesis does not describe the very beginning of all physical things -except in the first sentence -the rest is not the very beginning, but what took place after the earth HAD BECOME waste and ruin).
The bible does make some statements -but does not include much detail -and people make many assumptions.
Automated systems are not proof that creation did not take place -and would actually require a higher level of creative ability.

Furthermore... in the broadest sense of the word, the God of the bible is certainly described as one who has "evolved" -being the first and last, that which was, is and will be, etc.

It is written that the things of God are apparent in what was made.
It is absolutely correct to say that creativity was necessary for the present state of things -but evolution and creativity cannot be separated -and it may be that pure evolution is more true of God himself than his creation. Development from the most simple state of the sum of all things would actually explain Godlike position and abilities.
An eternal God could also not possibly be responsible for that which allows for his own existence.
He would simply be -but would also be dynamic.

The fact that God created us is actually evidence of his "evolution" -in the broadest sense of the word.

Very well said and a valid thought that I tend for the most part to agree.

Nicely said. Reminds me of this quote:

“If you wish to see the truth… then hold no opinions.” The Buddha

In agreeing with you I am also agreeing to what Hubert Farnsworth said. I have seen so many time science is presented as truth and fact, when science for the most part cannot prove anything.

Anyone who may use the most reliable evidence to look and find out more about what is around us. But to find a truth is like finding a unicorn or maybe even God. Because a truth means "Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem ...., a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem."

 

[ChristineM]

Fair enough. IMO, the word "proof" should never be used except in regard to maths and alcoholic beverages. But to each their own.

My view, so long as its qualified i don't see a problem, after all, proof by exhaustion is a valid mathematical concept. But as you say, each to their own.

 

[shunyadragon]

↑
Evolution doesn't cover abiogenesis.

Yes, and no, because the line between abiogenesis and evolution is rather vague. The chemical polymerization of amino acids, energy metabolism, and the early formation of early evolution of microbes, RNA synthesis, and ultimately DNA, and the natural selection process of the set of 20 amino acids, are shared by abiogenesis and early evolution. The first primitive life forms relied on natural heat sources for energy until they evolved the ability to metabolize energy themselves by feeding on other microbes..Life is an emergent process, and not something like turning on a light bulb in the difference between pre-life chemicals to primitive life forms that evolve.

The ability to internally metabolize energy in all life today is phosphate based, but early life forms began by using natural heat source evolving first to sulfur based energy sources, and the iron sulfates,and iron oxides may have been the catalyst for RNA reproduction.

From: https://phys.org/news/2017-03-biochemical-fossil-life-emerged-phosphate.html

One major mystery about life's origin is how phosphate became an essential building block of genetic and metabolic machinery in cells, given its poor accessibility on early Earth. In a study published on March 9 in the journal Cell, researchers used systems biology approaches to tackle this long-standing conundrum, providing compelling, data-driven evidence that primitive life forms may not have relied on phosphate at all. Instead, a few simple, abundant molecules could have supported the emergence of a sulfur-based, phosphate-free metabolism, which expanded to form a rich network of biochemical reactions capable of supporting the synthesis of a broad category of key biomolecules.

"The significance of this work is that future efforts to understand life's origin should take into account the concrete possibility that phosphate-based processes, which are essential today, may not have been around when the first life-like processes started emerging," says senior study author Daniel Segrè of Boston University. "An early phosphate-independent metabolism capable of producing several key building blocks of living systems is in principle viable."

Phosphate is essential for all living systems and is present in a large proportion of known biomolecules. A sugar-phosphate backbone forms the structural framework of nucleic acids, including DNA and RNA. Moreover, phosphate is a critical component of adenosine triphosphate (ATP), which transports chemical energy within cells, and a compound called NADH, which has several essential roles in metabolism. But it is unclear how phosphate could have assumed these central roles on primordial Earth, given its scarcity and poor accessibility.

In light of this puzzle, some have proposed that early metabolic pathways did not rely on phosphate. In many of these scenarios, sulfur and iron found on mineral surfaces are thought to have fulfilled major catalytic and energetic functions prior to the appearance of phosphate. One notable origin-of-life scenario suggests that the role of ATP was originally assumed by sulfur-containing compounds called thioesters, which are widely involved in protein, carbohydrate, and lipid metabolism. Despite the availability of iron and sulfur on early Earth, concrete evidence supporting these scenarios has been lacking.

To test the feasibility of the "iron-sulfur world hypothesis" and the "thioester world scenario," Segrè and his team used computational systems biology approaches originally developed for large-scale analyses of complex metabolic networks. The researchers used a large database to assemble the complete set of all known biochemical reactions. After exploring this so-called "biosphere-level metabolism," the researchers identified a set of eight phosphate-free compounds thought to have been available in prebiotic environments. They then used an algorithm that simulated the emergence of primitive metabolic networks by compiling all possible reactions that could have taken place in the presence of these eight compounds, which included formate, acetate, hydrogen sulfide, ammonium, carbon dioxide, water, bicarbonate, and nitrogen gas



Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-03-biochemical-fossil-life-emerged-phosphate.html#jCp

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, and no, because the line between abiogenesis and evolution is rather vague. The chemical polymerization of amino acids, and the early formation of early evolution of microbes, RNA synthesis, and ultimately DNA, and the natural selection process of the set of 20 amino acids, are shared by abiogenesis and early evolution. The first primitive life forms relied on natural heat sources for energy until they evolved the ability to metabolize energy themselves by feeding on other microbes..

And probably simple hydrocarbons such as methane. Volcanic vents provide more than just heat.

 

[exchemist]

My read of the rules is that you may not call people "stupid" even if you hide behind the title of a link.

That seems likely. I got moderated for calling a class of people stupid.

 

[shunyadragon]

That seems likely. I got moderated for calling a class of people stupid.

I like to use 'egocentrically biased,' and 'self inflicted ignorance.'

 

[Shlomoh]

The Lie of Evolution and the Stupidity of Those Who Believe It | Wisdom of God

Just couldn't resist talking about this. This is kind of silly.

For example...

Yet never have elements, nor molecules, nor dirt, nor rocks, nor even water made themselves form into living organisms

Evolution doesn't cover abiogenesis.

Meaning only one pair of a male and female of the kind “dog” was created, only one pair of a male and female of the kind “horse” was created, and from these parent kinds, came forth many varieties within their kinds.


Just couldn't resist talking about this. This is kind of silly.

For example...

Yet never have elements, nor molecules, nor dirt, nor rocks, nor even water made themselves form into living organisms

The big problem here IMO is these folks have a strawman idea of what evolution is and are stuck on attacking the strawman instead evolution.

Elements coming together and bumping into each other to form matter? Sounds like spontaneous generation

 

[exchemist]

Elements coming together and bumping into each other to form matter? Sounds like spontaneous generation

Elements are matter.

Elements bumping into each can result in reactions, creating what are called chemical compounds. Eg 2Na + Cl₂ -> 2NaCl + heat. So spontaneous generation of compounds - and heat.

The Na+ and Cl- ions line up in a nice ordered array, creating order, while the heat is dissipated into the surroundings, creating more disorder there. In this way local order spontaneously increases while overall, more disorder is produced.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Elements coming together and bumping into each other to form matter? Sounds like spontaneous generation

No, spontaneous generation is the sudden appearance of modern life, such as flies or even mice. It is more of a creationist idea than an evolutionary one.

 

[shunyadragon]

Elements coming together and bumping into each other to form matter? Sounds like spontaneous generation

No elements coming together follow the constraints of the laws of nature, and is not remotely 'spontaneous generation (?)'. They do not
just 'bump into each other.'

 

[exchemist]

Yes, and no, because the line between abiogenesis and evolution is rather vague. The chemical polymerization of amino acids, energy metabolism, and the early formation of early evolution of microbes, RNA synthesis, and ultimately DNA, and the natural selection process of the set of 20 amino acids, are shared by abiogenesis and early evolution. The first primitive life forms relied on natural heat sources for energy until they evolved the ability to metabolize energy themselves by feeding on other microbes..Life is an emergent process, and not something like turning on a light bulb in the difference between pre-life chemicals to primitive life forms that evolve.

The ability to internally metabolize energy in all life today is phosphate based, but early life forms began by using natural heat source evolving first to sulfur based energy sources, and the iron sulfates,and iron oxides may have been the catalyst for RNA reproduction.

From: https://phys.org/news/2017-03-biochemical-fossil-life-emerged-phosphate.html

One major mystery about life's origin is how phosphate became an essential building block of genetic and metabolic machinery in cells, given its poor accessibility on early Earth. In a study published on March 9 in the journal Cell, researchers used systems biology approaches to tackle this long-standing conundrum, providing compelling, data-driven evidence that primitive life forms may not have relied on phosphate at all. Instead, a few simple, abundant molecules could have supported the emergence of a sulfur-based, phosphate-free metabolism, which expanded to form a rich network of biochemical reactions capable of supporting the synthesis of a broad category of key biomolecules.

"The significance of this work is that future efforts to understand life's origin should take into account the concrete possibility that phosphate-based processes, which are essential today, may not have been around when the first life-like processes started emerging," says senior study author Daniel Segrè of Boston University. "An early phosphate-independent metabolism capable of producing several key building blocks of living systems is in principle viable."

Phosphate is essential for all living systems and is present in a large proportion of known biomolecules. A sugar-phosphate backbone forms the structural framework of nucleic acids, including DNA and RNA. Moreover, phosphate is a critical component of adenosine triphosphate (ATP), which transports chemical energy within cells, and a compound called NADH, which has several essential roles in metabolism. But it is unclear how phosphate could have assumed these central roles on primordial Earth, given its scarcity and poor accessibility.

In light of this puzzle, some have proposed that early metabolic pathways did not rely on phosphate. In many of these scenarios, sulfur and iron found on mineral surfaces are thought to have fulfilled major catalytic and energetic functions prior to the appearance of phosphate. One notable origin-of-life scenario suggests that the role of ATP was originally assumed by sulfur-containing compounds called thioesters, which are widely involved in protein, carbohydrate, and lipid metabolism. Despite the availability of iron and sulfur on early Earth, concrete evidence supporting these scenarios has been lacking.

To test the feasibility of the "iron-sulfur world hypothesis" and the "thioester world scenario," Segrè and his team used computational systems biology approaches originally developed for large-scale analyses of complex metabolic networks. The researchers used a large database to assemble the complete set of all known biochemical reactions. After exploring this so-called "biosphere-level metabolism," the researchers identified a set of eight phosphate-free compounds thought to have been available in prebiotic environments. They then used an algorithm that simulated the emergence of primitive metabolic networks by compiling all possible reactions that could have taken place in the presence of these eight compounds, which included formate, acetate, hydrogen sulfide, ammonium, carbon dioxide, water, bicarbonate, and nitrogen gas



Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-03-biochemical-fossil-life-emerged-phosphate.html#jCp

Thanks for the interesting link. The science is intriguing, though I take issue with the headline they chose for it. There seems to be no biochemical "fossil" here, as it is purely hypothetical modelling exercise, with no evidence that these chemical pathways were ever actually used.

But the phosphorus issue is certainly an interesting one. On the question of how phosphate came to be so ubiquitous in biochemistry, there is an interesting article here, Potential 'missing link' in chemistry that led to life on Earth discovered

proposing that diamido phosphate (DAP) may have been capable of incorporating phosphate into many of the various places where it is found today. I quote what to me was the most interesting section:
QUOTE
DAP could phosphorylate each of the four nucleoside building blocks of RNA in water or a paste-like state under a wide range of temperatures and other conditions.

With the addition of the catalyst imidazole, a simple organic compound that was itself plausibly present on the early Earth, DAP's activity also led to the appearance of short, RNA-like chains of these phosphorylated building blocks.

Moreover, DAP with water and imidazole efficiently phosphorylated the lipid building blocks glycerol and fatty acids, leading to the self-assembly of small phospho-lipid capsules called vesicles -- primitive versions of cells.

DAP in water at room temperature also phosphorylated the amino acids glycine, aspartic acid and glutamic acid, and then helped link these molecules into short peptide chains (peptides are smaller versions of proteins).
UNQUOTE
So now they are hunting for possible sources of DAP on the early Earth.....

 

[leroy]

Evolution doesn't cover abiogenesis.

To me it is just a semantic game, most evolutionists believe in abiogenesis too, so whether if you what to call it evolution or not, abiogenesis is still part of your world view and you still have to support it……… evolutionists tend ask questions about the ark and creationists usually don’t say “I won’t answer because the ark has nothing to do with the creation account”

Meaning only one pair of a male and female of the kind “dog” was created, only one pair of a male and female of the kind “horse” was created, and from these parent kinds, came forth many varieties within their kinds.


.

To me it is obvious and easy to understand when creationist talk about “kinds” it is obvious that dogs and wolves are the same kind and Dogs and Bannanas are a different kind…….you are not quoting from a technical article, the article is meant to be a simple reading, for anyone to understand.

Evolution isn't about a dog birthing a completely new breed. It is about a gradual change in each species. Depending on environment an external forces, some changes allow better chances for survival and just because they survive better and procreate more, that genetic trait becomes dominant in the species.

What you call evolution is widely accepted by all creationists, the problem is that what you call evolution does not necessarily imply common ancestry, nor that complex organs came from simpler organs by a process of random mutations and natural selection.

The big problem here IMO is these folks have a strawman idea idea of what evolution is and are stuck on attacking the strawman instead evolution

That might be true for some creationists, but in general IMO creationists tend to represent “evolution” correctly.

But in general terms I agree the article is silly.

 

[leroy]

They know evolution is proven beyond doubt and that they cannot attack it in any meaningful way but are unwilling to admit it because it pops their faith in god bubble so they build irrelevant straw men and throw sticks at it.

I consider this to be deliberate ignorance.

What exactly do you mean by “evolution” when you say it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt?

 

[ratiocinator]

To me it is just a semantic game, most evolutionists believe in abiogenesis too, so whether if you what to call it evolution or not, abiogenesis is still part of your world view and you still have to support it………

There's no have to about it. The difference is that evolution by natural selection is an extremely well established scientific theory, whereas the mechanism of abiogenesis is unknown. An argument against (natural) abiogenesis has no bearing on the theory of evolution. If somebody wants to do a "god of the gaps" argument and accept evolution while maintaining that natural abiogenesis is impossible, they taking a radically different (and somewhat less absurd) view from those who deny evolution.

That might be true for some creationists, but in general IMO creationists tend to represent “evolution” correctly.

I haven't looked for a while but I have spent a lot of time in the past looking at creationist sites and I can honesty say I've never seen one that didn't misrepresent evolution in some way or another.

What exactly do you mean by “evolution” when you say it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt?

I dislike the word proof in the context but it's correct that evolution by natural selection and common decent is "proven" (or established) way beyond any reasonable doubt.

 

[ChristineM]

What exactly do you mean by “evolution” when you say it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt?

That every discipline of science that has involvement in evolution has shown evolution to be valid, to have occured and is still occuring so that it can be observed.