Jump to content


Photo

Why Atheistic Evolution Is A Myth


  • Please log in to reply
145 replies to this topic

#141 WalterK

WalterK

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Alberta

Posted 23 December 2010 - 04:38 PM

You response was a direct reply to AFJ’s post (as I provided). You may want to go back and read it before you proceed.


I know who I have replied to, including yourself. I initially raised the abiogenesis hypotheses based on Mama's post (it wouldn't change what I have written based on who I was replying to).

The above is a faith statement, and nothing more unless you provide empiric evidence of life arising from inanimate matter in the “naturalistic” manner you suggest.


I have already stated that abiogenesis is as yet hypotheitical.

Again, another faith statement; and an illogical one at that. The question was “Where did the “First” molecule get the code to self-replicate?” You may want to look up the word “inherent” prior to replying.


I know what "inherent" means. The code is the structure of the first molecule.

If you are going to make a “factual” statement, it is incumbent upon you to provide the “factual” evidences for said statements. In other words; “saying it so, doesn’t make it so”. And your style of equivocation will not last long here.
All you are providing is opinion. If you are going to make a “factual” statement, it is incumbent upon you to provide the “factual” evidences for said statements. In other words; “saying it so, doesn’t make it so”. Again, your style of equivocation will not last long here.


Quantum mechanics is one of the most successfully predictive theories in science, do you really want me to provide evidence for it?

The "factual statement" I wrote: "You know the evidence – phylogeny, biogeography, the distribution of fossils through the geological column - but all you ever say is that they require presuppositions and no presuppositions are ever identified." You have posted here for long enough, do you really want me to provide evidence that you are familiar with the argumnets for evolution?

Where and how have I equivocated? To equivocate is to fudge a definition. Accusing someone of equivocation is not some magic bullet you can use whenever you are not inclined to engage with what has been posted.

You may want to read the forum rules one more time before you go off on dishonest rants like that.


What rant? You asked me "does that mean you have fruit flies and bananas in your lineage? "

Is equivocation all you’re providing in this discussion?

View Post


No, I've directly answered all your questions.

#142 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 23 December 2010 - 05:22 PM

I know who I have replied to, including yourself.  I initially raised the abiogenesis hypotheses based on Mama's post (it wouldn't change what I have written based on who I was replying to).
I have already stated that abiogenesis is as yet hypotheitical.
I know what "inherent" means.  The code is the structure of the first molecule.
Quantum mechanics is one of the most successfully predictive theories in science, do you really want me to provide evidence for it?

The "factual statement" I wrote: "You know the evidence – phylogeny, biogeography, the distribution of fossils through the geological column -  but all you ever say is that they require presuppositions and no presuppositions are ever identified."  You have posted here for long enough, do you really want me to provide evidence that you are familiar with the argumnets for evolution?

Where and how have I equivocated?  To equivocate is to fudge a definition.  Accusing someone of equivocation is not some magic bullet you can use whenever you are not inclined to engage with what has been posted.
What rant?  You asked me "does that mean you have fruit flies and bananas in your lineage? "
No, I've directly answered all your questions.

View Post


So, you don't actually want to provide any evidence.... Very well.

#143 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 October 2011 - 06:52 AM

For atheistic evolution to be true (and by that I mean “Macro” evolution):

1- Evolution MUST be continuing today. But; we have absolutely no evidence of life arising from inanimate matter. Absolutely NO amino acids have been observed to have formed into life via “natural” chemical reactions. Further; absolutely NO kind/species have been observed changing/transforming/evolving into another kind/species. ALL so called “evidences” for this is presupposed and contrived.

2- After supposed millions (or billions) of years, and millions of kinds/species, why is it that only “Man” would have a historical record of achievement ! The fact is we have absolutely NO evidence of ANY other so called “evolved” animal achieving even ONE of the following;

An imagined, designed, tested, and manufactured – A heavier than air “craft” that achieves the speed, distance and altitude of the human air/space craft. A sea “craft” that achieves the speed, distance and endurance of the submarine. An land traveling “craft” that achieves the speed, distance and efficiency of the automobile.

Communications devices that not only transmit voice, picture, and video feed, but massive amounts of pure data anywhere we have physically been. Write a sonnet, novel, technical manual, (etc…). Create the instruments to play music. And the factories to build and maintain ALL of the above man-made items.

I could go on and on, but you get my gist. That only MAN would evolve to achieve what he has is illogical, and alone renders Atheistic evolution to the level of “Myth”.

View Post


Further… Atheistic evolutionists have to deal with their logical (and scientific) morass of “life from nonlife”, and “intelligence from non-intelligence”. Both of which effect ALL evolution from an atheistic standpoint.

View Post


To take this even a step further, if the atheist continue to "Dogmatically" support “atheistic” macro-evolution, even with its lack of foundational evidences (as per the OP), do they then fall within the religiosity (exacerbated by their illogical conundrum) as suggested in:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=4056

Why do we continue to see the "burdon shifting":

http://www.evolution...topic=3059&st=0

#144 Jud Froelich

Jud Froelich

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Age: 19
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Blacksburg, VA

Posted 23 October 2011 - 08:05 PM

Hey, my name is Jud.

I know I am not a part of the discussion at the moment, but I would like to share my opinion on the subject.

I have often asked myself this question: "If evolution is true, then why aren't we evolving into different creatures (physically speaking)?" I have never actually sought a legitimate explanation for this question, until now.

The human brain wasnt different 2000 years ago, than it is now, and ancient thinkers like Aristotle, Hippocrates and Plato are brilliant, intelligent thinkers in their own right. We've been able to increase our knowledge, but we haven't necessarily become more, or less, intelligent than we were 3000, 4000 years ago.

-Tkubok (last post)

When I read this statement, I felt myself nodding my head in agreement. I don't believe we are evolving. I believe that if evolution were true, we would be evolving into different sorts of creatures.

You might say that we don't see the changes because they are very gradual, but humans have been in existence for at least 6000 years (even longer if you believe in evolution), and no physical changes have been recorded. Our minds haven't changed, our bodies haven't grown new organs, or new fingers and toes. As Tkubok said, I don't believe the mind has changed. Humans have gained knowledge, yet we stil do stupid things, for example, we smoke and take harmful drugs. If our minds are evolving then why do humans still attack one another, and wrestle with the issues of the world? If we have evolved from monkeys, then our brains have evolved from their brains. There is a big difference between both brains, and if evolution is true we should expect our brains to be more evolved and more capable than the earlier human race's brains. If our brains were still evolving we would have solved some of the problems that the world faces right now. We would have, achieved some sort of peace, but instead we have more conflicts going on in the world than ever before. Has evolution just stopped for humans?
  • Ron likes this

#145 sjl197

sjl197

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 25 October 2011 - 02:32 AM

Whether you believe humans are adapting or evolving or not, i'd say the evidence shows we are, and have, even during those last 6,000 years

Here's a good example, as we all know Ron in particular likes empirical examples
Evolution of lactose digestion. I expect you can digest milk like I can. All children can, but not all adults can.

http://www.nytimes.c...cnd-evolve.html

I'd say differences in human height, skin colar and skin pigmentation have all showed adaptation, and dare i say, evolution.
Many aspects of modern human adaptation (during the last 6000 ears) are driven by parasites and bacteria.
I'd say you've got a decent chance to survive a new outbreak of Black Death or Bubonic Plague because your ancestors did.
Same with modern humans on Carribean/South Pacific islands, would stand a good chance to survive small pox, because
their ancestors did, since living small pox carrying Westerners reached their islands and spread the disease that decimated populations.

Take a look at this with malaria
http://sickle.bwh.ha...ria_sickle.html

It is very difficult to say how the power of the human mind has adapted or evolved over the last 6,000. But it has been quantified
by looking at the complexity of human drawings, from basic outlines of hunt animals on cave walls with square bodies and stick legs
towards shaded toned skillful depictions of horses in fluid motion galloping through rivers..

And yes, in the current age when its often the parents with below average intelligence who have the most children, while highly
intelligent and well educated ones have few, then that maybe does indicate there is now little selection pressure that might favour
continued intellectual growth/development in future humankind. Those with many children pass their characteristics onto subsequent
generations in greater numbers than those that have fewer children.

There was an odd but rather watchable film...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

#146 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 25 October 2011 - 05:12 AM

Whether you believe humans are adapting or evolving or not, i'd say the evidence shows we are, and have, even during those last 6,000 years

The word “believe” is very important in the above sentence, AND the following sequences in sjl197’s line of reasoning. What I might point out as well, is that the conversion by definition that is going on shows the blatant prejudices/biases and (once again) massive amounts of faith promulgated by the evolutionists world-view. The implications pushed by the evolutionists are that adaptation + millions of years = macroevolution (an unproven concept). So sjl197 is firstly attempting to establish short term evidences of adaptation. But, he forgets… No one is arguing against “adaptation”, because we can prove “adaptation” empirically! But, what is killing his hypothesis, is that he has totally failed to provide a causal connection between “adaptation” and his end-game (or ultimate goal) of macroevolution. But the evolutionist WILL defend his faith in macroevolution dogmatically, and with fervency!


Here's a good example, as we all know Ron in particular likes empirical examples
Evolution of lactose digestion. I expect you can digest milk like I can. All children can, but not all adults can.

http://www.nytimes.c...cnd-evolve.html

As far as the “empirical evidence” goes, we have ALWAYS (historically) had the ability to digest lactose; infants through adulthood (with the exception of the lactose intolerant). But, even if we didn’t, these adaptive abilities in no way “empirically” prove macroevolution; it only “empirically” proves “adaptability!

But, what assumptions really stand out in the opinions propagated in the linked article:

First - The assumption that humans haven’t always used lactose for milks, cheeses and other food stuffs.
Second - The assumption for when humans first started herding cattle (cows, goats, sheep, etc…). For example; the gaps in their estimates are huge “The principal mutation, found among Nilo-Saharan-speaking ethnic groups of Kenya and Tanzania, arose 2,700 to 6,800 years ago, according to genetic estimates”.. Yet evolutionists like sjl197 wants to emply a certain amount of certitude in such suggestions.
Third – There is no reason to believe that that which is “switched off”, cannot be “switched on” again.


I'd say differences in human height, skin colar and skin pigmentation have all showed adaptation, and dare i say, evolution.
Many aspects of modern human adaptation (during the last 6000 ears) are driven by parasites and bacteria.


Once again, the suggestion that the adaptation within “human height, skin color and skin pigmentation” + millions of years = Macroevolution is nowhere proven in the above statement; empirically or otherwise. It is nothing more than mere opinion.


I'd say you've got a decent chance to survive a new outbreak of Black Death or Bubonic Plague because your ancestors did.
Same with modern humans on Carribean/South Pacific islands, would stand a good chance to survive small pox, because
their ancestors did, since living small pox carrying Westerners reached their islands and spread the disease that decimated populations.

Take a look at this with malaria
http://sickle.bwh.ha...ria_sickle.html


Once again, the suggestion that the adaptation within “disease survival via immunity” + millions of years = Macroevolution is nowhere proven in the above statement; empirically or otherwise. It is nothing more than mere opinion.
I could go on pointing out the rest of the red herring below, but I have other things to do right now… If I really have to, I’ll come back and do so.

But, suffice it to say, as I pointed out in my opening statement; sjl197 “has totally failed to provide a causal connection between “adaptation” and his end-game (or ultimate goal) of macroevolution”, but he will religiously defend his faith in evolution.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users