Darwin's Theory is False

[SnakeLord]

To me, a living thing is something that can reproduce, shows a clear cycle from inception to death, reacts to its surroundings, requires food and water for its survival, is organic...

Ok. Would you consider Mycoplasma genitalium as life? (it's the smallest known bacterium in existence). It has a genome of 400 units but would still be viable with 250.

What if it had 120?

When exactly do you say something is a lifeform and not just a chemical reaction? (It's like asking when exactly does a puppy become a dog).

---------

If evolution is NOT focused on the ORIGIN of life (which is kind of strange, since Darwin's treatise was "Upon the Origin of Species), then why the hostility towards creationism, which IS all about the origin of life

If that were true, creationists would say: "a being created the universe", and that would be that. That's all they need say about the origin of life. Unfortunately they come up with highly ludicrous arguments, using an absolute lack of knowledge and science, and then try to demand that it be taught in science class.

Would you not be slightly hostile if evolution was forced into church services?

Even more embarrasing is that they often try to complain that we "have no proof", while espousing that it was all done by an invisible sky being. Utter silliness. (I believe you yourself even tried to use this argument). The evidence and information is there, these people just can't be bothered with the studying.

I do not disagree with evolution in the sense of animals adapting to their environment. I disagree with Darwinism and macro-evolution, but micro-evolution is a biological fact.

A lack of study on your part most likely. However, as an interesting question that creationists generally refuse to answer: What mechanism prevents macro while allowing micro?

There is also evidence for creation too

Such as?

 

[smallaxe0217]

Smallaxe, there are a number of us these forums who, like myself are agnostic. I was raised in a Christian setting. Then, and now, I see no conflict between Christianity and evolution. If the Christian God (or any supreme being) exists he could readily have set the Universe in motion with a set of laws that would lead inevitably to us - I guess that's the benefit of being omnipotent.

I agree with you to a point. While there is a serious philosophical conflict in my mind between the Christian God and evolution, I see where one could believe that God used evolution to create the world. I don't believe that He did, but since evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life, there is no fundamental conflict there. As I admitted, I had assumed that all evolutionists had some form of abiogenisis theory; but I realize that evolution and abiogenesis are two different things.

What Iasion has expressed very clearly in his post is a) some of the errors in thinking that you may have picked up along the way b) and the importance of evidence in the thinking of a scientist. Without evidence ideas are speculation only.

On both sides.
I hope we can continue the discussion in a similar measured and respectful manner, but please remember it is not the goal of science to disprove God or Christianity. Were I a Christian I would say it was sciences role to uncover the wonders of his creation, including that magnificent cornerstone, evolution.

Ophiolite

I agree with you. It's just that many people use science as a club against God and Christianity...

 

[smallaxe0217]

This is utter twaddle (note the highly scientific adjective! )

Evolution says nothing about abiogenesis, and doesn't even try to.
Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the origins of life.

It is a common misunderstanding that really should not be part of a scientific forum such as this.
There is no matter of faith in evolution - it is fact.
It is based on evidence. It has been observed.

I don't think any atheist or any scientist will claim knowledge of the origins of life. It is a mystery that has as yet been unexplained. If someone (scientist or otherwise) believes they know the answer, without the evidence to support that claim, then that is purely a matter of faith - and any claim is as baseless and worthless as any other - be it "God did it" or "Aliens did it" or even "This chemical reaction did it". Without evidence there is nothing but conjecture.
Claims without evidence are just "faith" and not part of science, and not part of rational thought.

I won't disagree that someone's faith (be it religious or otherwise), in as much as it could be the cornerstone on which someone builds their personality / ethics / morals should be treated with the greatest respect.
But these same people should also have the decency to accept that the rational people on this forum have no need for faith, and only accept things on the basis of evidence.

If you can not provide evidence then you are merely arguing about 2 non-existent ideas - each of which is as meritless and as irrelevant as the other.

So in essence, you're saying that faith in ANYTHING is twaddle? By definition, faith is something that no rational person should have?

 

[smallaxe0217]

Ok. Would you consider Mycoplasma genitalium as life? (it's the smallest known bacterium in existence). It has a genome of 400 units but would still be viable with 250.

What if it had 120?

When exactly do you say something is a lifeform and not just a chemical reaction? (It's like asking when exactly does a puppy become a dog).

A lifeform is a noun/thing; a chemical reaction is a verb/event. I am not sure what you are asking here. My definition of life did not include genome units; I would consider that bacterium as a lifeform.

---------



If that were true, creationists would say: "a being created the universe", and that would be that. That's all they need say about the origin of life. Unfortunately they come up with highly ludicrous arguments, using an absolute lack of knowledge and science, and then try to demand that it be taught in science class.

This is a separate argument. I disagree with those who would force others to learn views that they don't believe, no matter what side it is on. The question of where life originated has been stated to be a philosophical one, and should be admitted as such. If evolution does not have an answer to that question, it is only honest to admit it. I agree that Christian creationism should not be forcibly taught in public schools, but evolution should be honestly presented as well.

Even more embarrasing is that they often try to complain that we "have no proof", while espousing that it was all done by an invisible sky being. Utter silliness. (I believe you yourself even tried to use this argument). The evidence and information is there, these people just can't be bothered with the studying.

Evidence is not proof. I can show you much evidence of Pythogoras's theorem, I can show you a 3-4-5 or a 7-12-13 triangle, but that doesn't prove the theorem is true. It is not for you to make a judgement of people just because they do not agree with you.

A lack of study on your part most likely. However, as an interesting question that creationists generally refuse to answer: What mechanism prevents macro while allowing micro?

There is no known mechanism that prevents the macro. However, it has not been seen, since it takes a long time to occur (as according to its propenents). It is taken on faith that micro will lead to macro. I simply do not believe that macro-evolution takes place.

And you do not know what I have and have not studied. There is no need for anyone to get personal in all of this.



Such as?

This was in reference to evidence of creation. We create things everyday, I think that is the greatest evidence. It is not evidence of a Divine creator who made us, but it is an obvious fact that whatever begins to exist has a creator. If we see a new drug out on the market, that drug did not just come from a random mix of chemicals in a lab; people put time and effort into synthesising the medication.

 

[Silas]

Intelligent Designers may disagree with you, but that's a whole new kettle of worms.

Ahem. There are proponents of a putative "theory" called "Intelligent Design". Just so we're clear, there isn't anything "Intelligent" about the proponents themselves.

 

[Woody]

Woody, I would point out that you were the one who gloated over us non-believers facing an eternity in the fires of hell.

Not so, I wish you weren't going there and I edited my original post because so many atheists are offended about the biblical concept of hell.

You were the one who offensively declared I was an atheist, when I had clearly explained I was very deliberately and consciously agnostic.

You are classified as a weak atheist . Your choice of the word "agnostic" is your own -- It says you have looked at the evidence and can not find proof of whether God exists or not. It is still an atheist by definition, the only difference being that at least you looked at the evidence, but still came to the same conclusion. On the otherhand "weak atheists" do not deny the existence of God like "strong" atheists do, but they are still atheists never-the-less.


from the Wiki:

Agnosticism is distinct from strong atheism (also called positive atheism or dogmatic atheism), which denies the existence of any deities. However, the more general variety of atheism, weak atheism (also called negative atheism, and sometimes neutral atheism), professes only a lack of belief in a god or gods, which is not equivalent to but is compatible with agnosticism. Critical atheism admits that a god or gods are meaningful concepts but the evidence for them is not in hand, so a default position of not believing in them must be taken in the interim.

So what's the big deal over a fine shade of grey? You are over-reacting.

You were the won who persisted in using strawman arguments to support your case.

And what is wrong with a straw man might I ask?

A Woody original quote for you:

A skilled debater uses a straw man like a bullfighter uses a cape to draw his opponent to his inevitable downfall.

I really don't think it wise for you to be lecturing any of us on respect. And before you jump in, no I don't respect you and I believe I have made that very clear on earlier posts. The reasons for that lack of respect are noted above.

And you have hated me without a cause -- should I expect differently?

 

[SnakeLord]

A lifeform is a noun/thing; a chemical reaction is a verb/event.

Nouns and verbs are not really relevant here.

My definition of life did not include genome units; I would consider that bacterium as a lifeform.

Your definition didn't, and never did I imply it did. However, there was a question in there that you missed.

This is a separate argument

Not really, no. You asked why there was hostility towards creationism. I gave you a reason.

If evolution does not have an answer to that question

Again, evolution and the origins of life are two different subjects. Creationists rarely realise this, and attack 'evolution'. Hence another reason for hostility.

but evolution should be honestly presented as well.

Could you point out the "dishonest" parts?

Evidence is not proof

I didn't imply that it was.

It is taken on faith that micro will lead to macro.

A highly inaccurate statement. Alas, I cannot type masses and masses of material onto a forum post, I can only advise study.

I simply do not believe that macro-evolution takes place

It should never be "simply not believing", but coming to an informed decision after studying the subject in depth.

And you do not know what I have and have not studied. There is no need for anyone to get personal in all of this.

I wasn't being personal, (which is why I put "most likely"), given that that's quite common. It's like when my wife debates make-up with me. She'll say Molton Brown is the best, (as example), to which I can simply produce no counter argument because I have not studied the subject matter.

People are simply in no position to argue something unless they have done the study, and yet people think they can refute evolution and anything else they so choose without having done so. "Simply not believing", is not acceptable in a debate.

This was in reference to evidence of creation.

I am aware of that. My question was: "such as?"

We create things everyday, I think that is the greatest evidence

Greatest evidence of what? That humans can make things, and otters can crack seashells?

It is not evidence of a Divine creator who made us

There you go then. I did actually ask for evidence of creation. You then go on to contradict yourself, stating:

"I think this is the greatest evidence", and then in the very next sentence saying "it is not evidence".

Bizarre.

 

[Sarkus]

So in essence, you're saying that faith in ANYTHING is twaddle? By definition, faith is something that no rational person should have?

Yes.

But do not confuse this type of "faith" (belief without evidence) with merely the colloquial type of "faith" that one speaks of which is really just "on balance of probability" that is built up over a series of observations....

e.g. I have faith that my friend will not poison my food.
Why? Because this kind of "faith" is actually just a weighing up of probability that I have built up over time spent in my friend's company.
This is no different to saying: "On the balance of probability through observations - my friend will not poison my food".

Note how this is different to a "faith" that is a belief in something with NO EVIDENCE at all - such as a belief in GOD.


If you feel that there is no difference between these uses of the word "faith" then please feel free to give an example.

But basically, belief without evidence (i.e. religious-level FAITH) is irrational, illogical, unreasonable etc.

Yet in other matters, such a level of irrationality would probably be seen as a serious illness.
E.g. if I was to walk around "believing" that I see little pink unicorns everywhere - I would probably get myself locked up.

 

[wesmorris]

I think your attempt to distinguish between types of faith is somewhat mislead.

It is, IMO... simply pompous to think that anyone believes in anything with no evidence at all.

Seriously. Religious folks, cult members, etc. They all have PLENTY of evidence.

It's just that you and I might find their evidence wholly ridiculous.... isn't it?

 

[SkinWalker]

Nearly every argument or position woody has taken has been of strawman style. Indeed, Woody strikes me as the kind of bigoted christian that would classify anyone who doesn't believe in his brand of xianity as "atheist."

But the most revealing point of his true ignorance is the post above where he applies his own definitions on others out of pejorative disrespect. By woody's logic, he is an atheist himself. We all just believe in one less god than he does.

It is the dishonest debater -the debater whose main argument is baseless- that uses the strawman. And it is this debater who is proud of doing so.

 

[Ophiolite]

Woody, I would point out that you were the one who gloated over us non-believers facing an eternity in the fires of hell.

Not so, I wish you weren't going there and I edited my original post because so many atheists are offended about the biblical concept of hell.

Exactly, you wish I wasn't going there because it embarasses you. Too many people read it precisely the way I did. Whether consciously or unconsciously there was a viscious smugness in your words that was unattractive to the point of being repulsive.

You are classified as a weak atheist . Your choice of the word "agnostic" is your own -- It says you have looked at the evidence and can not find proof of whether God exists or not. It is still an atheist by definition, the only difference being that at least you looked at the evidence, but still came to the same conclusion. On the otherhand "weak atheists" do not deny the existence of God like "strong" atheists do, but they are still atheists never-the-less.

I think I shall decide what I am, if you can stand back from your self righteous, offensive classifications for a moment. The sad thing is you probably believe in all of this that you are somehow the injured party.
If we are going to quote websites try these for size.

http://www.iwriteiam.nl/GEm_ag.html
Where we read
Weak agnosticism
A weak agnost simple claims that he does not know whether God exists. This means that he does not exclude the possibility of knowing whether God exists.
Strong agnosticism
Strong agnoticism claims that it is impossible to know whether God exists. Somehow this is very strong claim, as it requires knowledge about reality to know this for sure. For this reason, some people hold the position that strong agnosticism is self-defeating.
Neither of these can be remotely be declared as the position of an atheist, unless you wish to add gross and cuplable distortion of the Engish language to your sins.

Or, http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/agnosticism
The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

And finally, on the third time of asking we get this:
More recently, however, some atheists have attempted to define atheism in more cautious terms, as nothing more than the absence of belief in God. This has complicated matters, introducing an ambiguity into the definition of “atheism”. One solution to this ambiguity is to distinguish between “weak atheism” and “strong atheism”.
The emphasis is mine. This is a minority position, as unwelcome as it is unecessary. I have not called you a heathen idolater, I ask you not to call me an atheist.

And what is wrong with a straw man might I ask?

Have you heard of intellectual dishonesty? A strawman argument is not a clever debating trick, it is the refuge of the cheat, the charlatan and the liar. You sir are a pretentious, self righteous hypocrite. If your theology is valid we may well see each other again, in another place.

And you have hated me without a cause -- should I expect differently?

I don't hate you. I pity you. And from time to time despise you.

 

[Sarkus]

I think your attempt to distinguish between types of faith is somewhat mislead.

It is, IMO... simply pompous to think that anyone believes in anything with no evidence at all.

Seriously. Religious folks, cult members, etc. They all have PLENTY of evidence.

It's just that you and I might find their evidence wholly ridiculous.... isn't it?

I don't agree.
I'm sure they have plenty of subjective experience - but this is not evidence.
But if they claim that their religious faith (in the existence of God) is based on evidence - they should detail that evidence - and put it forward for scrutiny.
Every piece of evidence EVER put forward to support the existence of God is at best purely subjective - and none of it passes the scrutiny of logic, of science, or reason.

There simply is no evidence as yet uncovered to support the existence of a God that is anything more than equivalent to something that doesn't exist.

And ask religious people if there is actually evidence of God's existence, whittle away all the obvious claptrap, peel away the misunderstandings, discard the illogical, and you're left with nothing.

And I do know of people who admit that, as far as they are concerned, there is no evidence for the existence of their God, yet believe out of a matter of "faith" - knowing full well there is a difference between this faith and the "probability" example I gave above.
Yet still they believe.

 

[Godless]

To me, a living thing is something that can reproduce, shows a clear cycle from inception to death, reacts to its surroundings, requires food and water for its survival, is organic...

Wow, then by this definition of life, god is not life, god is non existent. It clearly shows no sign of requiring food, water and it defenetly non organic.

the Bible is actually the most verifiable of ancient manuscripts available. If you are interested in seeing how accurate the translations are, take a look at the Bible entry at wikipedia, or any respected Biblical site.

like this one?

Godless

 

[smallaxe0217]

Nouns and verbs are not really relevant here.

You asked me when would a lifeform become a lifeform and cease being a chemical reaction; I was saying in essence that I can't compare a thing with an action.


Your definition didn't, and never did I imply it did. However, there was a question in there that you missed.

I actually answered your question: I WOULD consider it a lifeform.



Again, evolution and the origins of life are two different subjects. Creationists rarely realise this, and attack 'evolution'. Hence another reason for hostility.


I realize this now that evolution and abiogenisis are two different subjects.


Could you point out the "dishonest" parts?


The main one is the presentation of evidence that is subject to multiple interpretation as incontrovertible fact, such as the "embryo" similarities, the failure to illustrate the circular logic in geological dating (the age of rocks are used to determine the age of the fossils contained in these rock formations...which are used to define the agre of the rock formations). Basically, my complaint is that the THEORY of evolution is presented as a FACT. Relativity is taught as a theory, even with all the evidence that shows its strength. Quantum physics is presented as a theory, even with all of its solid evidence. Evolution is posed as the whole truth and no dissent is brooked. It is as if the tables have been turned, the scientific establishment has become the Catholic church of Galileo's time with the same attitude to those who have the temerity to disagree.


A highly inaccurate statement. Alas, I cannot type masses and masses of material onto a forum post, I can only advise study.

I'll put it this way: I've seen many breeds of dogs developed for many purposes; but they all remained dogs. Forgive me for not just accepting your word that my statement is inaccurate at this point.


It should never be "simply not believing", but coming to an informed decision after studying the subject in depth.


Before I go into anything in-depth, I have to know the basic outline of what's going on. From what i've studied and read of evolution, I can believe that micro-evolution exists, but to believe that new species can occur due to random mutation in sufficient numbers and mutations to provide the diversity of life that I see on this planet is not a logical conclusion to my mind.



I wasn't being personal, (which is why I put "most likely"), given that that's quite common. It's like when my wife debates make-up with me. She'll say Molton Brown is the best, (as example), to which I can simply produce no counter argument because I have not studied the subject matter.


You didn't have to mention it at all. All you know about me at this point is from what I say in my posts; I would not make any judgements about where you are "most likely" coming from; I just ask that the same courtesy be extended to me.

People are simply in no position to argue something unless they have done the study, and yet people think they can refute evolution and anything else they so choose without having done so. "Simply not believing", is not acceptable in a debate.


I am not here to "debate", I have no illusions of changing anyone's mind. All I am doing here is presenting what I believe, and why I do not believe that Darwinism is a sound theory for the devolopment of life.


Greatest evidence of what? That humans can make things, and otters can crack seashells? There you go then. I did actually ask for evidence of creation. You then go on to contradict yourself, stating:

"I think this is the greatest evidence", and then in the very next sentence saying "it is not evidence".

Bizarre.


I should have said "it is not proof", my bad.

Human beings make/create things. That's creation right there, whether it's a work of music, or a car, or any other structure. If I were to play a song and you asked me "who wrote it?" and I said "oh, no one wrote it" you'd tell me i was bizarre. If a song exists, it exists because someone created it. Anything that begins to exist has a creator; the only thing that does not begin to exist is that which always existed.

so that the post may come up.

 

[Ophiolite]

I am not here to "debate", I have no illusions of changing anyone's mind. All I am doing here is presenting what I believe, and why I do not believe that Darwinism is a sound theory for the devolopment of life.

This seems to suggest that nothing we can say can change your view on this. Am I misinterpreting your intention?

 

[smallaxe0217]

Yes.

But do not confuse this type of "faith" (belief without evidence) with merely the colloquial type of "faith" that one speaks of which is really just "on balance of probability" that is built up over a series of observations....

What is the difference? The faith I have in my beliefs is the same faith you speak of, a "balance of probability built up over a series of observations." I do not have blind faith, and because someone has faith in religion does not automatically mean that that faith is blind.

e.g. I have faith that my friend will not poison my food.
Why? Because this kind of "faith" is actually just a weighing up of probability that I have built up over time spent in my friend's company.
This is no different to saying: "On the balance of probability through observations - my friend will not poison my food".

And that is the same faith I have in my beliefs. In a previous post, I said that all of us have to come to our own conclusions based on the evidence presented to us.

Note how this is different to a "faith" that is a belief in something with NO EVIDENCE at all - such as a belief in GOD.

It is your belief that there is no evidence for God's existence; I disagree with that.

If you feel that there is no difference between these uses of the word "faith" then please feel free to give an example.

A person prays to God for healing/financial blessing, and recieves it. Over time, this person sees the actions of various events in her life that lead her to conclude that God is working in her life, and her faith is strengthned. Now, this could just all be foolishness; coincidence that when she prayed, something happened to work it out for her benefit, and that all these events were just a chance occurence. Of course it's possible that it was just all fortuitous.

It could also be evidence of God acting in her life.

At any rate, the faith that she has in God is due to these events that have happened in HER life, but it is valid only to her. She can't prove to you that God exists from those actions in her life, but she doesn't care what YOU think because YOU weren't the one who's prayers were answered. It's all her own experience, and the only experience we can truly know is our own.

There is other evidence of course; the argument about where morality comes from, the choice between life beginning as a random event or as a chance event, the question of who Jesus Christ was, the question as to why do we even exist, and the conclusion to that question...

But when all is said and done, the greatest evidence is what you have personally seen/experienced.

But basically, belief without evidence (i.e. religious-level FAITH) is irrational, illogical, unreasonable etc.

Therein is the rub: as long as you insist that any religious-level faith is belief without evidence, then you and I will be talking past each other.

lalala

 

[smallaxe0217]

This seems to suggest that nothing we can say can change your view on this. Am I misinterpreting your intention?

That is a very dangerous question

I am basically trying to get some respect for my position. I know why I believe what I believe, and while I believe that anyone can change their mind at any time for any reason, I do not think that anything anyone on this forum can say will convince me to become an atheist. I HAVE learned a lot so far; I did not know that evolution and abiogenesis were two different things so I am grateful for that. I am sure that I will learn many other things as well; the best way to know what someone else believes is to ask them. How can I minister to atheists if all I know about them is what other Christians tell me?

It is just that in the cursory reading I saw when I randomly came across this forum online, I saw my beliefs (as a Christian) being ridiculed and misrepresented. Now, I will have to take the ridicule, such is life; but at least people should know WHAT I believe so that they can be honest in their ridicule of me.

If at least one person can read what I write and at least come away seeing that being a religious person does not mean that one has to become reject science, logic or common sense, then I am happy.

 

[smallaxe0217]

Wow, then by this definition of life, god is not life, god is non existent. It clearly shows no sign of requiring food, water and it defenetly non organic.

If God created us, then He is by definition beyond our explanation. He is not limited to life as we know it, so you are right that my definition of life would not fit God.

It wasn't meant to.

like this one?


Interesting site; but why would i read a skeptic bible? That would be like reading "A History of Black People" by David Duke.


Godless

lalala

 

[smallaxe0217]

I don't agree.
I'm sure they have plenty of subjective experience - but this is not evidence.

All evidence is by nature subjective. Look at OJ and the bloody glove. All you know is what YOU see and what YOU believe; just because you do not believe in their subjective evidence does not in any way diminish the fact that it IS evidence.

You might have faith in your friend that he will not poison you if he gives you food, because you know him. I don't know him, so I don't have that faith. Am I wrong? You know him, I don't. Your subjective evidence is just as valid as mine.

 

[The Devil Inside]

what about the traditional protestant belief that christ went to hell and then returned to witness to his disciples?




oh, i get it now!! hey guys, ive figured it out!!!!!
WOODY is the only one allowed to pick and choose which scriptures are logically sound.....and to think we were all arguing with him!!



1. no, you quoted yourself.
2. yep he is.
3. no, cause deuteronomy restricts me from practicing necromancy. paul is dead.
4. you see no contradiction because obviously you cant read what anyone else writes unless it agrees with your fundamentalist mentality.

*dusts his hands on his pants*
seriously....why dont we just ignore this guy?

IM STILL WAITING FOR YOUR ANSWER, WOODY!!!
oh, thats right...you dont have one that you can back up.