Janszoon

Let's see here. In two sentences you manage to:

1. Employ the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
2. Ignore the mountains of evidence supporting the theory of evolution.
3. Misrepresent Darwin's ideas.
4. Confuse evolution with abiogenesis, again.
5. Misuse the word "motif".

Phew, that must have been some hard work. Impressive!

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

s_k

I am afraid:

That Lord Bat is right.
He's preaching, not discussing .

__________________
Click here to see my collection

Guybrush

Your assumption here is so off and ignorant that it's hard to know where to start really. I'll just start somewhere. What about fossil evidence for example? Generally, the older human fossils are, the less they look like modern day humans. Same goes for other animals. How do you explain that?

You have more local examples of evolution too. F.ex being a carrier of the sickle cell gene makes you immune to malaria, so the trait is a lot more common in areas with malaria. Still, this also leads to much more death because of the sickle cell disease. So, it looks like evolution to me, but perhaps you think that this is God's way of making these peoples cope better with malaria?

First of all, even when describing stuff that spans a lot of time, it's not all extrapolation since you have fossil evidence dating back even more than a billion years. Also, evolution takes place all the time and you don't need to extrapolate to millions of years to measure it. I guess you didn't read my example with the squirrels. The best way to observe evolution directly is of course with microorganisms since their generation time is short.

Here is a news article on the evolution of a lab strain of bacterias : Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab - life - 09 June 2008 - New Scientist

There are other examples of evolution too. For example, the Newfoundland cod population now has a reduced size compared to earlier because the fish nets have caught fish of a certain size. That made it advantageous to reach adulthood (defined as the time you can have sex) at a smaller size and so now, Newfoundland cod are smaller than they used to be.

The only difference between gravity and evolution in the "truth" sense is that people like you have a much better idea of what gravity is. Because evolution is a little hard to understand and conflicts with many religious ideas, you are taught by websites, books and the words of people who don't understand it that it's wrong and, more, that it's a threat to your religion. That's the basis which your criticism comes from, not really whether or not evolution makes sense. You don't know what it is anyways, so how can you judge whether or not it makes sense?

Do you get all your arguments from creationists.org? Anyways, scientists being christians doesn't make them creationist scientists. There are plenty of religious scientists. I know a couple myself from my biology study. The thing is, though, that even though they are christians, they are scientists and have to work on scientific methodology which is tailored to uncovering the truth. So, christian scientists working by the rules and standards of common scientific methodology is common. The fact that the scientific community as a whole is made up of people with different beliefs and perspectives is a strength, not a weakness. As I wrote, science is not anti-religion. It's just pro-truth.

When scientists criticize creationists scientists, they do so because their methodology and studies are poor by science's standards, not because they are christian. If there were any serious studies that proved the existence of God, then science would have to treat them fairly. Problem for you is there aren't.

edit :

Just out of interest, how often do you read/see claims and ideas in education/media/websites like this and so on that you completely disagree with? Do you feel like only a small minority knows the general truth about the world we live in?

__________________
Something Completely Different

Maccabbe

All the 'fossil record' mumbo jumbo is based on extrapolation, a pointless and wrong way to measure things of antiquity and to arrive to any logical and factual conclusions.

Yes, evolution is nothing more then a well hyped and well funded science-fiction, though Tolkien did a better job with his Lord of the Rings, which by the way everyone knows deals with mythical things.

So wanna base your entire life on lies?

I guess some do.

But the existence of God is self evident, without him we will have nothing, we wont even have the word 'we', without him.

So each to his own, you believe your nonsense, and I will believe in the God of Israel, and the message of an entire nation that are a direct witness to what took place back then, and that's way better then some dead and smelly rotten bones tested in some back warded lab by biased 'scientists' who think they know everything.

So no more discussion from me on this topic.

Janszoon

If it's so self-evident why doesn't everyone believe it?

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

Maccabbe

Because people don’t want to believe in God, its a great responsibility to believe him, for he expects certain things from humanity, but some don’t want to follow his commandments, and therefore they think that by ignoring him, they'll fix this 'problem'.

Read what the scientists said about evolution and big bangs yourself here:

"Evolution is not a fact. Evolution doesn’t even qualify as a theory or as a hypothesis. It in a metaphysical research program, and it is not really testable science”1 (Popper).

I suppose the reason why we leapt at the Origin of Species was that the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.”2 (Huxley).

“…I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science….It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] & holes as sound parts.” Charles Darwin to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) pp. 456, 475.

“Nowhere was Darwin able to point to one bona fide case of natural selection having actually generated evolutionary change in nature….Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century.” Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crises (Bethesda, Maryland: Adler & Adler, 1986) pp. 62, 358.

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.” Søren Løvtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (New York: Croom Helm, 1987), p. 422.

“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.” Dr. T. N. Tahmisian Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes by N.J. Mitchell (United Kingdom: Roydon Publications, 1983), title page.

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination." Albert Fleischmann. Witnesses Against Evolution by John Fred Meldau (Denver: Christian Victory Publishing, 1968), p. 13.

“[T]he theory suffers from grave defects, which are becoming more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge, nor does it suffice for our theoretical grasp of the facts…No one can demonstrate that the limits of a species have ever been passed. These are the Rubicons which evolutionists cannot cross…Darwin ransacked other spheres of practical research work for ideas…But his whole resulting scheme remains, to this day, foreign to scientifically established zoology, since actual changes of species by such means are still unknown.” Albert Fleischmann, "The Doctrine of Organic Evolution in the Light of Modern Research," Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute 65 (1933): pp. 194-95, 205-6, 208-9.

“Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” Louis Bounoure. The Advocate, 8 March 1984, p. 17.

“And the salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we henceforth shall), then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred.” Wolfgang Smith, Teilhardism and the New Religion (Rockford., Ill.: Tan Books, 1988), pp. 5-6. Dr. Smith, taught at MIT and UCLA.

"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the inevitable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not prove to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past." Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey (1957), p. 199.

"If complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler ones, the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous." R.E.D. Clark, Victoria Institute (1943), p.

" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence, and that it made its appearance in six days (or instantaneously, if that is preferred), in consequence of the volition of some preexisting Being. Then, as now, the so-called a priori arguments against Theism and, given a Deity, against the possibility of creative acts, appeared to me to be devoid of reasonable foundation." Thomas H. Huxley, quoted in *L. Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. I (1903), p. 241 (1903). 63.

"Our theory of evolution has become . . one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it . . No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas wither without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training." L.C. Birch and *P. Ehrlich, Nature, April 22, 1967.

"What is at stake is not the validity of the Darwinian theory itself, but of the approach to science that it has come to represent. The peculiar form of consensus the theory wields has produced a premature closure of inquiry in several branches of biology, and even if this is to be expected in `normal science,' such a dogmatic approach does not appear healthy." R. Brady, "Dogma and Doubt," Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 17:79, 96 (1982)

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, as secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today”3 (Ruse).

Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable”4 (Sir Arthur Keith)"

Janszoon

And you know this how exactly? Can you read minds? Because as non-believer myself I can tell you that is absolutely not my reason for not believing. I don't believe simply because I have not heard an argument for the existence of god that is in any way convincing.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

Guybrush

Maccabbe,

All the quotations do is show that you're not able to rely on your own reasoning when arguing the subject. A lot of the quotes there claim that evolution is unprovable. If they were discussing here, I'd argue against them. Studies like the one I just linked you in my previous posts clearly shows that it is testable and is provable. There's far more smart people in the world who'd agree with me on that than what you quote in your post, but fortunately I don't consider myself reliant on their quotations to discuss the subject because I have an understanding of my own.

In your last reply which shows your unwillingness to reply to our criticisms/questions, you've clearly demonstrated that your mind is closed to criticism and new ideas. Your ability to rationally explain your idea of the world seems to reach its limits rather quickly.

__________________
Something Completely Different

Maccabbe

How did your parents raise you, that's the question...

But there is nothing what to argue anymore.

The greatest of the evolutionists and scientists have said it in very clear words, that evolution is a total bluff and a great myth. I have provided, the Quotes, with the names of the books, the names of the scientists, and the pages and the articles very clearly.

They themselves have said its a lie.

So is there any room for argument?

No.

The only question is, what people will choose to do after they found out that they have been told lies and myths.

Would you throw your intelligence and conscience in the garbage and follow lies to the very end, like Gollum with the Ring of power and jump to the river of doom no matter what? Or you will finally understand that you were created by God, and finally come close to him and see what he wants from you, and what he expects from you?

The choice is entirely yours.

Maccabbe

End of discussion, you have a problem with why evolution is a myth...? then go knock on Darwin's grave and perhaps while you're at it, ask Huxley and the other scientists as well, they themselves said its a myth, not a Young Jewish classical composer and pianist like myself, (even though I agree with them completely that its a total myth) so address them not me.

The greatest of the evolutionists and scientists have said it in very clear words, that evolution is a total bluff and a great myth. I have provided, the Quotes, with the names of the books, the names of the scientists, and the pages and the articles very clearly.

They themselves have said its a lie.

So is there any room for argument?

No.

The only question is, what people will choose to do after they found out that they have been told lies and myths.

Would you throw your intelligence and conscience in the garbage and follow lies to the very end, like Gollum with the Ring of power and jump to the river of doom no matter what? Or you will finally understand that you were created by God, and finally come close to him and see what he wants from you, and what he expects from you?

The choice is entirely yours.