Jump to content


Photo

Ignorant Evolutionary Video Today In Biology


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
10 replies to this topic

#1 Quaker Reason

Quaker Reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana
  • Interests:Religion, Science, History, Military, Computers, Roman History, Astronomy, Books, The Truth
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Indiana

Posted 01 March 2012 - 01:45 PM

Evolution test tomorrow, anything I need to know? :kaffeetrinker:

But anyways our teacher showed us a video on Evolution from Discovery, and I wanted to flip.

Here's the two things that made me angry.

"Darwin more accurately developed the idea of Natural Selection."
It pinches a nerve in my neck when I hear this. It should be "Darwin more accurately took the ideas of Edward Blythe and made changes to them."

And the last one made me swear a little bit, because I could smell the vileness in it. It showed us the Miller Urey experiment and how he used the Hydrogen, Carbon, Methane, water, and electricity to make the Amino Acids. Heck I know Evolutionists who have abandoned this idea and said that it can't be true and they're still using it. I don't claim any extreme knowledge to Biology but I do know that Amino Acids need a certain environment of elements to survive.

#2 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 01 March 2012 - 01:53 PM

Evolution test tomorrow, anything I need to know? :kaffeetrinker:

But anyways our teacher showed us a video on Evolution from Discovery, and I wanted to flip.

Here's the two things that made me angry.

"Darwin more accurately developed the idea of Natural Selection."
It pinches a nerve in my neck when I hear this. It should be "Darwin more accurately took the ideas of Edward Blythe and made changes to them."

And the last one made me swear a little bit, because I could smell the vileness in it. It showed us the Miller Urey experiment and how he used the Hydrogen, Carbon, Methane, water, and electricity to make the Amino Acids. Heck I know Evolutionists who have abandoned this idea and said that it can't be true and they're still using it. I don't claim any extreme knowledge to Biology but I do know that Amino Acids need a certain environment of elements to survive.


Before each answer, I'd begin my sentence with, "most scientists believe" or "some scientists believe" and answer the questions according to that. That way you're letting the teacher know that you think the ideas aren't supportable, but answering the questions correctly. Also, so you don't fail the test by going on about why the theories don't work.

Maybe someone has some better advice, but I think that's what I would do.

#3 Quaker Reason

Quaker Reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indiana
  • Interests:Religion, Science, History, Military, Computers, Roman History, Astronomy, Books, The Truth
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Old Earth Creationist
  • Indiana

Posted 01 March 2012 - 02:10 PM

Before each answer, I'd begin my sentence with, "most scientists believe" or "some scientists believe" and answer the questions according to that. That way you're letting the teacher know that you think the ideas aren't supportable, but answering the questions correctly. Also, so you don't fail the test by going on about why the theories don't work.

Maybe someone has some better advice, but I think that's what I would do.

Nah we're not going to be tested on that.

#4 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 01 March 2012 - 09:10 PM

Evolution test tomorrow, anything I need to know? :kaffeetrinker:

But anyways our teacher showed us a video on Evolution from Discovery, and I wanted to flip.

Here's the two things that made me angry.

"Darwin more accurately developed the idea of Natural Selection."
It pinches a nerve in my neck when I hear this. It should be "Darwin more accurately took the ideas of Edward Blythe and made changes to them."

And the last one made me swear a little bit, because I could smell the vileness in it. It showed us the Miller Urey experiment and how he used the Hydrogen, Carbon, Methane, water, and electricity to make the Amino Acids. Heck I know Evolutionists who have abandoned this idea and said that it can't be true and they're still using it. I don't claim any extreme knowledge to Biology but I do know that Amino Acids need a certain environment of elements to survive.


One thing to remember. Just because to pass the test you have to answer the way they want does not mean you believe it. Evolution is not reality so your are only learning what they claim not what is true. Of course if you want to make a statement you could have a second answer paper that points out all the flaws along with references. For all you know the teacher may not be aware of these things.

So in other words take the test answer the questions the way they want you to. And attach a paper that points out the flaws to all this. This way they cannot fail you for the test because you answered it correctly on the test paper, and you get to educate them. Might make them mad but what can they do about it?

#5 Alex

Alex

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ottawa, Canada

Posted 14 March 2012 - 08:08 PM

Well as for the Miller-Urey experiment, I do not remember where I read this, but it was indeed found out that such an experiment did not reflect the original conditions of the prebiotic earth. However, I do believe more recent and accurate experiments have been made, all of which have shown some production of amino acids, and many producing even more than the 20 amino acids we use in our bodies. So while the Miller-Urey experiment is not representative of the original conditions, it was the first experiment of its kind, and others have succeeded where Miller-Urey have failed.

For Darwin stealing ideas, there was also a young fellow named Wallace I think who developed more or less the same ideas at the same time, so indeed. he wasn't the first. Nowadays, however, we use the modern synthesis, so Darwin is more a symbolic/historical figure, and those are often less than 100% truthful.

#6 Nuada

Nuada

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Kirkcaldy, Scotland

Posted 15 March 2012 - 07:41 AM

Evolution test tomorrow, anything I need to know? :kaffeetrinker:

But anyways our teacher showed us a video on Evolution from Discovery, and I wanted to flip.

Here's the two things that made me angry.

"Darwin more accurately developed the idea of Natural Selection."
It pinches a nerve in my neck when I hear this. It should be "Darwin more accurately took the ideas of Edward Blythe and made changes to them."

And the last one made me swear a little bit, because I could smell the vileness in it. It showed us the Miller Urey experiment and how he used the Hydrogen, Carbon, Methane, water, and electricity to make the Amino Acids. Heck I know Evolutionists who have abandoned this idea and said that it can't be true and they're still using it. I don't claim any extreme knowledge to Biology but I do know that Amino Acids need a certain environment of elements to survive.


In it's full utilization, that is its widest application, Darwin developed the theory of Natural Selection. He also understood and developed the full meaning of Natural Selection and all it's repercussions better than those before him.

Essentially Science is all about walking in the footsteps of those who have come before. Darwin walked in the shoes of Blythe, Hutton, Lyle etc as much as Einstein walked in the shoes of Newton.

The Miller-Urey experiments were a resounding success, no one expected that they would actually be able to form the essential building blocks of life under any conditions. Their assumption of the earth's initial conditions was wrong, but their experiment was still a major breakthrough, and served to open the field of Abiogenesis. Admittedly this should be explained when discussing the Miller-Urey experiment, as should the current research and findings in the field of Abiogenesis.

- Nuada

#7 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 15 March 2012 - 12:29 PM

1. In it's full utilization, that is its widest application, Darwin developed the theory of Natural Selection. He also understood and developed the full meaning of Natural Selection and all it's repercussions better than those before him.

2. Essentially Science is all about walking in the footsteps of those who have come before. Darwin walked in the shoes of Blythe, Hutton, Lyle etc as much as Einstein walked in the shoes of Newton.

3. The Miller-Urey experiments were a resounding success, no one expected that they would actually be able to form the essential building blocks of life under any conditions. Their assumption of the earth's initial conditions was wrong, but their experiment was still a major breakthrough, and served to open the field of Abiogenesis. Admittedly this should be explained when discussing the Miller-Urey experiment, as should the current research and findings in the field of Abiogenesis.

- Nuada

In it's full utilization, that is its widest application, Darwin developed the theory of Natural Selection. He also understood and developed the full meaning of Natural Selection and all it's repercussions better than those before him.

Essentially Science is all about walking in the footsteps of those who have come before. Darwin walked in the shoes of Blythe, Hutton, Lyle etc as much as Einstein walked in the shoes of Newton.

The Miller-Urey experiments were a resounding success, no one expected that they would actually be able to form the essential building blocks of life under any conditions. Their assumption of the earth's initial conditions was wrong, but their experiment was still a major breakthrough, and served to open the field of Abiogenesis. Admittedly this should be explained when discussing the Miller-Urey experiment, as should the current research and findings in the field of Abiogenesis.

- Nuada


1. If that is so then why is there the modern synthesis? :P

2. Yes but they BUILD ON TOP of what has come before... Not copy it and claim it as their own, that is plagiarism and is not allowed for students let alone those who call themselves scientists..

3. Yes the downfalls should always be presented like with anything... Failure to do so is more like a business sales speech... (Used car salesman etc)

#8 Nuada

Nuada

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Kirkcaldy, Scotland

Posted 15 March 2012 - 06:04 PM

1. If that is so then why is there the modern synthesis? :P

2. Yes but they BUILD ON TOP of what has come before... Not copy it and claim it as their own, that is plagiarism and is not allowed for students let alone those who call themselves scientists..

3. Yes the downfalls should always be presented like with anything... Failure to do so is more like a business sales speech... (Used car salesman etc)


1) I fail to see your point here, there is a Modern Synthesis because Biology is a multifaceted discipline....

2) I don't think he 'copied' it from Blythe, please present your evidence. The only thing I can think of that you may be referring to is the copies of Blythe's theories via magazine that Darwin received in 1835 whilst upon the Beagle. Darwin was already a fair way through his publishings on Natural Selection and Evolution at this point however, drafts and diary entries from Darwin himself on the subject were dated long before this.

3) Well yeah, I agree with you here. I still think their main point was to show the building blocks of Biology however, and probably not to ingrain the principles of Abiogenesis. In any case, they should mention the inadequacies of the experiment, and further experiments that rectify these issues.

P.S. I've noticed you number everything, why? If you don't mind me asking.....

- Nuada

#9 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 March 2012 - 10:10 PM

1) I fail to see your point here, there is a Modern Synthesis because Biology is a multifaceted discipline....

2) I don't think he 'copied' it from Blythe, please present your evidence. The only thing I can think of that you may be referring to is the copies of Blythe's theories via magazine that Darwin received in 1835 whilst upon the Beagle. Darwin was already a fair way through his publishings on Natural Selection and Evolution at this point however, drafts and diary entries from Darwin himself on the subject were dated long before this.

3) Well yeah, I agree with you here. I still think their main point was to show the building blocks of Biology however, and probably not to ingrain the principles of Abiogenesis. In any case, they should mention the inadequacies of the experiment, and further experiments that rectify these issues.

P.S. I've noticed you number everything, why? If you don't mind me asking.....

- Nuada

1. I was replying to your claim in post #6

" 1. In it's full utilization, that is its widest application, Darwin developed the theory of Natural Selection. He also understood and developed the full meaning of Natural Selection and all it's repercussions better than those before him."

Read the bolded bits, and then ask yourself if this is true then there would be no need for the modern synthesis...

2. I'm going on from what I have heard. It does make sense since Darwin wasn't even taught in Biology and his "Evidence" with the finches was found by a researcher who got his specimens and organised them for him....

3. Biology existed long before evolution... So calling evolution the building blocks of Biology is a misnomer.


I number everything so the person can see what I am responding to and where.

#10 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 17 March 2012 - 11:10 PM

1) I fail to see your point here, there is a Modern Synthesis because Biology is a multifaceted discipline....


There is a modern synthesis because the former was falsified by Mendel's law of heredity, which was ignored for 35 years as a result Link.

2) I don't think he 'copied' it from Blythe, please present your evidence. The only thing I can think of that you may be referring to is the copies of Blythe's theories via magazine that Darwin received in 1835 whilst upon the Beagle. Darwin was already a fair way through his publishings on Natural Selection and Evolution at this point however, drafts and diary entries from Darwin himself on the subject were dated long before this.


"Eiseley, not a creationist, wrote that "Blyth is more than a Darwinian precursor, he is, instead, a direct intellectual forebear. . . ." In Eiseley's estimation, Blyth "belongs in the royal line . . . one of the forgotten parents of a great classic." On the same page, Eiseley also affirmed that "Darwin made unacknowledged use of Blyth's work."


Editor Kenneth Heuer concluded, "this is Eiseley's discovery." Darwin had "failed to acknowledge his obligation to Blyth." He did acknowledge others (and even Blyth peripherally), but, as Eiseley demonstrates persuasively, Darwin for some reason chose not to credit creationist Blyth with the key element in his theory — natural selection.


In addition to providing the reader with a chapter on Edward Blyth written by contemporary Arthur Grote, Dr. Eiseley furnished essays written by the creationist himself — essays that most assuredly were read by Charles Darwin. They originally appeared in The Magazine of Natural History in 1835, 1836, and 1837. Examples of how this naturalist honored his Creator are provided."


http://www.icr.org/a...ationists-idea/


"Blythe recognized that Darwin had been feeding from him, as from so many others, like some intellectual leech" - Andrew Bradbury


http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/Number2/Darwin2Html.htm


3) Well yeah, I agree with you here. I still think their main point was to show the building blocks of Biology however, and probably not to ingrain the principles of Abiogenesis. In any case, they should mention the inadequacies of the experiment, and further experiments that rectify these issues.


No one has ever observed a protein assembling itself from basic amino acids, so the problem has not been rectified. In fact, a protein can not be assembled without the genes that transcript them in place first.

"RNA, DNA’s helpmate, remains the most popular answer to this conundrum, just as it was when I wrote "In the Beginning…" Certain forms of RNA can act as their own enzymes, snipping themselves in two and splicing themselves back together again. If RNA could act as an enzyme, then it might be able to replicate itself without help from proteins. RNA could serve as gene and catalyst, egg and chicken.

But the "RNA-world" hypothesis remains problematic. RNA and its components are difficult to synthesize under the best of circumstances, in a laboratory, let alone under plausible prebiotic conditions. Once RNA is synthesized, it can make new copies of itself only with a great deal of chemical coaxing from the scientist. Overbye notes that "even if RNA did appear naturally, the odds that it would happen in the right sequence to drive Darwinian evolution seem small."

http://blogs.scienti...how-life-began/

Thanks,.

#11 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 18 March 2012 - 12:21 AM

Here's a good video by Paul James-Griffiths that traces the history of evolution. If anyone has time to watch it, we can discuss how the idea itself went farther back than Darwin.




"Indeed, the Hindus were Spinozists 2,000 years before the birth of Spinoza, Darwinians centuries before the birth of Darwin, and evolutionists many centuries before the doctrine of evolution had been accepted by the Huxleys of our time, and before any word like evolution existed in any language of the world" (Sir M. Monier - Williams, Professor of Sunskrit, University of Oxford, 1984)

So, Darwinism is rooted in Hinduism, which is an established religious belief that pre dates biological sciences, and clearly demonstrates it's tendency to be parasitic on the Judeo-Christian discoveries of John Ray, Carl Linnaeus, Edward Blythe, and Gregor Mendel.


"The track record of Neo-Darwinism is parasitic on prior Creationist breakthroughs over which Neo-Darwinists now claim sole ownership, and which Creationists have yet to claim back as their own". - Steve Fuller



Enjoy.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users