97 replies to this topic

[gilbo12345]

I was entertaining the idea of the future collapse of the belief in evolution, and I was wondering if there would be repercussions from the scientists who were ridiculed and were treated badly due to their disbelief in evolution... Also what would prominent atheist evolutionists do? Would they accept the collapse of blindly cling to a decaying husk.

Further, what basis would atheism have?

[ikester7579]

Something is not falsifiable if the people believe it is true. And something cannot fall if it's not falsifiable. The atheists who come here to debate and basically ignore all things that do not conform to evolution is proof of it's un- falsifiability. Atheists mainly believing in evolution and having complete control over science also make sure that evolution would never be falsified. All the man hours and work put into evolution makes it to where if it failed all that would become trash, and the people in those power positions in science are not going to let that happen. And the most scariest part of it all is if they have nothing to believe in they actually might have to consider God. And we know that most would rather die then to ponder that possibility.

So after weighing all that I would say it will never happen. For the atheist there is to much at stake to even allow it. So everything will continue as normal.

But there is one way to disprove it. Remove it as required indoctrination in school and and watch how quickly it dies. Because as soon as evolution is stopped from being taught as a fact in schools the next generation will see it for what it really is. That's probably the worst fear evolutionist have is losing power in the schools/

[gilbo12345]

I totally agree and may be why Dawkins was calling for evolution to be taught when kids are 5 years old!

http://www.guardian....n-children-five

Might I just point out the blatant lies Dawkins claims

"Evolution is a truly satisfying and complete explanation of existence, and I suspect that this is something a child can appreciate from an early age," he writes in the Times.

If evolution was a "complete explanation of existence" then why are the issues of the beginning of the universe and the beginning of life not put to rest... He claims "science is working on it", however this definitely is not the "complete explanation of existence"... Its this constant self-contradiction that really disappoints me, and displays his own bias and lack of scientific neutrality.


Many people I know who have a die-hard belief in evolution do so because that is what they were taught to believe when they were children. Even those I talk with and they admit that there are flaws will still believe since that is the "norm".

However considering how vocal evolutionists are it seems that the noose is tightening quickly for evolution belief. With new research more contradictions to evolution build- it is my sincere hope that one day there will be enough for even the most faithful evolutionist to renounce their belief based on how contradictory and illogical it is compared to reality.

[MamaElephant]

I totally agree and may be why Dawkins was calling for evolution to be taught when kids are 5 years old!

I see this a lot in the secular homeschool community. They believe that they are inoculating their children against ignorance, blind faith, and bigotism.

With new research more contradictions to evolution build- it is my sincere hope that one day there will be enough for even the most faithful evolutionist to renounce their belief based on how contradictory and illogical it is compared to reality.

Yes, I had someone tell me that they were agnostic because "science explains so much". So I asked her how evolution works and proceeded to explain how it works in reality and according to YEC belief. "Yes! Yes! That is it, exactly what I think." But you see, that is not what mainstream evolutionary science says. What they say is that evolution works in quite the opposite way, starting with simple organisms and gaining genetic information and complexity. "Oh, well that doesn't make any sense." I am grateful I was able to plant that small seed from the research made available to me due to creation.com and this forum (and a book called The Top Ten Myths of Evolution).

[Quaker Reason]

We wouldn't have Natural Selection or Survival of the Fittest.

[gilbo12345]

We wouldn't have Natural Selection or Survival of the Fittest.

.....How so?

[Ron]

I was entertaining the idea of the future collapse of the belief in evolution, and I was wondering if there would be repercussions from the scientists who were ridiculed and were treated badly due to their disbelief in evolution... Also what would prominent atheist evolutionists do? Would they accept the collapse of blindly cling to a decaying husk.

Further, what basis would atheism have?

Evolutionism (or, what I like to call Evolutheism) will, like most religions, be around for some time (the foreseeable future) because it's the only religion materialistic atheists (amongst others) have to cling to. And this is mainly because it is lacking ALL of its origins explanations due to absolutely NO logical, rational or empirical scientific evidences of such.

Evolutheism indeed has a great many ardent and zealously dogmatic followers!

[gilbo12345]

Evolutionism (or, what I like to call Evolutheism) will, like most religions, be around for some time (the foreseeable future) because it's the only religion materialistic atheists (amongst others) have to cling to. And this is mainly because it is lacking ALL of its origins explanations due to absolutely NO logical, rational or empirical scientific evidences of such.

Evolutheism indeed has a great many ardent and zealously dogmatic followers!

Evolutionism (or, what I like to call Evolutheism) will, like most religions, be around for some time (the foreseeable future) because it's the only religion materialistic atheists (amongst others) have to cling to. And this is mainly because it is lacking ALL of its origins explanations due to absolutely NO logical, rational or empirical scientific evidences of such.

Evolutheism indeed has a great many ardent and zealously dogmatic followers!

Surely when it gets debunked, it will be relegated to the same stance as claims that the Earth is flat

[ChrisCarlascio]

Yes, I had someone tell me that they were agnostic because "science explains so much". So I asked her how evolution works and proceeded to explain how it works in reality and according to YEC belief. "Yes! Yes! That is it, exactly what I think." But you see, that is not what mainstream evolutionary science says. What they say is that evolution works in quite the opposite way, starting with simple organisms and gaining genetic information and complexity. "Oh, well that doesn't make any sense." I am grateful I was able to plant that small seed from the research made available to me due to creation.com and this forum (and a book called The Top Ten Myths of Evolution).

I tried telling one of my friends that we didn't come from apes and he was like, "but I've seen them walk on two legs." I told him that it hurts their back after a while, it's different from the way we walk, and that they spend more time walking on all fours. He didn't really voice any objection, but I think he was still skeptical. Then when I told him that they think we came from fish, he said, "nooo" and started laughing. He was ready to accept that we came from apes, but he hadn't even thought past that. I still wonder where he thought we came from. I imagine he thought that God or something just made some apes and then set them on the path to becoming human.

[ikester7579]

We wouldn't have Natural Selection or Survival of the Fittest.

Darwin did not come up with natural selection, a creationist named Edward Blyth did. Just like most every idea he wrote in his book he plagiarized from someone else. Basically all Darwin did was put these ideas together from different people he took them from, filled in some of the blanks the best he could and wrote his book.

1) Most of his ideas came from his grandfather's book named" Zoonomia, the laws of organic life.
2) He got his natural selection idea from Edward Blyth.
3) Even the famous finches idea was not his. And he did not see this while on that island. It was a few years later after sending home every specimen he had to those he considered experts on the matter. The one he sent the finches to had to correct Darwin's categorizations of the birds. He had it all wrong. So it was not until later after he got home that he put things together to come up with the idea that he did. Evolutionists like to say that he saw it right on the island. But if you look at his journals which I just watched a documentary on, it did not happen that way.

I find it ironic that the more I dig into things about Darwin the more I find that the ideas he had were not really his, And that things were often covered up. And history was even twisted to make things look better. Basically there is deception everywhere. Now why would Darwin do all these things? That one is actually easy to answer. If you are trying to fit into a group and look as smart as they are, but yet you don;t have the actual education that it takes to be that smart what do you do instead if you really want to fit in? You steal the ideas from other people and make them your own and give no one else the credit for them.

Darwin did not give credit to:

1) His grandfather for using his ideas from his book.
2) Edward blyth for the idea of natural selection. You can google this and read about it.
3) Or the one person who took his finches and fixed the categorizations of them which he took credit for as well.

And just to show you the double standard here, a evolutionist will say: So what, who cares? But if a creationist had actually done this it would get put on CNN news and the creationists would have this bashed over their heads continually. By saying: See you guys cannot even come up with an original idea so you got to steal it from someone else.... Which basically says what about Darwin?

And if he went this far plagiarizing people who knows how much more there was that we don't even know about. Which if you think about it, fits right into everything else Creationists claim about evolution. The idea was tainted from it's very origins, Darwin made sure of that.

[Quaker Reason]

Darwin did not come up with natural selection, a creationist named Edward Blyth did. Just like most every idea he wrote in his book he plagiarized from someone else. Basically all Darwin did was put these ideas together from different people he took them from, filled in some of the blanks the best he could and wrote his book.

1) Most of his ideas came from his grandfather's book named" Zoonomia, the laws of organic life.
2) He got his natural selection idea from Edward Blyth.
3) Even the famous finches idea was not his. And he did not see this while on that island. It was a few years later after sending home every specimen he had to those he considered experts on the matter. The one he sent the finches to had to correct Darwin's categorizations of the birds. He had it all wrong. So it was not until later after he got home that he put things together to come up with the idea that he did. Evolutionists like to say that he saw it right on the island. But if you look at his journals which I just watched a documentary on, it did not happen that way.

I find it ironic that the more I dig into things about Darwin the more I find that the ideas he had were not really his, And that things were often covered up. And history was even twisted to make things look better. Basically there is deception everywhere. Now why would Darwin do all these things? That one is actually easy to answer. If you are trying to fit into a group and look as smart as they are, but yet you don;t have the actual education that it takes to be that smart what do you do instead if you really want to fit in? You steal the ideas from other people and make them your own and give no one else the credit for them.

Darwin did not give credit to:

1) His grandfather for using his ideas from his book.
2) Edward blyth for the idea of natural selection. You can google this and read about it.
3) Or the one person who took his finches and fixed the categorizations of them which he took credit for as well.

And just to show you the double standard here, a evolutionist will say: So what, who cares? But if a creationist had actually done this it would get put on CNN news and the creationists would have this bashed over their heads continually. By saying: See you guys cannot even come up with an original idea so you got to steal it from someone else.... Which basically says what about Darwin?

And if he went this far plagiarizing people who knows how much more there was that we don't even know about. Which if you think about it, fits right into everything else Creationists claim about evolution. The idea was tainted from it's very origins, Darwin made sure of that.

I'm reading Erasmus Darwin's book.

[ikester7579]

I'm reading Erasmus Darwin's book.

Cool, you can enlighten us on some things.

[Ron]

Evolutionism (or, what I like to call Evolutheism) will, like most religions, be around for some time (the foreseeable future) because it's the only religion materialistic atheists (amongst others) have to cling to. And this is mainly because it is lacking ALL of its origins explanations due to absolutely NO logical, rational or empirical scientific evidences of such.

Evolutheism indeed has a great many ardent and zealously dogmatic followers!

Evolutionism (or, what I like to call Evolutheism) will, like most religions, be around for some time (the foreseeable future) because it's the only religion materialistic atheists (amongst others) have to cling to. And this is mainly because it is lacking ALL of its origins explanations due to absolutely NO logical, rational or empirical scientific evidences of such.

Evolutheism indeed has a great many ardent and zealously dogmatic followers!

Surely when it gets debunked, it will be relegated to the same stance as claims that the Earth is flat

Debunked? How can one debunk that which has never been proven?

[gilbo12345]

Debunked? How can one debunk that which has never been proven?

Very true, yet in the evolutionists mind it already is a "fact"... (It totally skipped the just supported stage )

[Ron]

[NewPath]

I was entertaining the idea of the future collapse of the belief in evolution, and I was wondering if there would be repercussions from the scientists who were ridiculed and were treated badly due to their disbelief in evolution... Also what would prominent atheist evolutionists do? Would they accept the collapse of blindly cling to a decaying husk.

Further, what basis would atheism have?

I have my own theory on this, based on the fact they they do know of the anomalies, the evidence is often tucked away in the basements of museums. I believe true Christianity is being maligned through subtle media images in movies etc. A few "bible fundamentalists" will possibly let off a few bombs one day and the world will hate us even more. At just the right time when true Christianity has been largely sidelined and the world ecumenical movement has sucked in all the "protestant churches" back under the Catholic wing, there will be a sudden exposure of tons of hidden evidence. DNA results will show a single ancestor, giving the correct number of generations. Archaeological evidence will confirm the bible even more. Evolution will be disproved, the flood proved and even the Ark officially discovered.

There will be a rush back to churches, synagogues and to Islamic Mosques. Jews/Muslims/Christians will be gloating over their newfound religious superiority, and this is when the "antichrist" will come to power, amidst these great signs and proofs of the original bible stories. Atheists will go to church too. This evil man will also be a unifier between the three world religions and we will be seen as the only ones against an obvious new world peace. We will be slaughtered until Jesus comes.

Pretty isn't it but that's how I see it. Which is all applicable to an end-times discussion , not a scientific forum like this.

[Chris]

According to the evolutionists, the reverse of the current question has been put to us a million times, and we're the ones clinging to a decaying husk of a belief system. Despite reams of evidence to the contrary.

[Ron]

A World Without Evolution is like a Day Without Sunshine! What, then, would the atheists have to base their faith on?

[gilbo12345]

I have my own theory on this, based on the fact they they do know of the anomalies, the evidence is often tucked away in the basements of museums. I believe true Christianity is being maligned through subtle media images in movies etc. A few "bible fundamentalists" will possibly let off a few bombs one day and the world will hate us even more. At just the right time when true Christianity has been largely sidelined and the world ecumenical movement has sucked in all the "protestant churches" back under the Catholic wing, there will be a sudden exposure of tons of hidden evidence. DNA results will show a single ancestor, giving the correct number of generations. Archaeological evidence will confirm the bible even more. Evolution will be disproved, the flood proved and even the Ark officially discovered.

There will be a rush back to churches, synagogues and to Islamic Mosques. Jews/Muslims/Christians will be gloating over their newfound religious superiority, and this is when the "antichrist" will come to power, amidst these great signs and proofs of the original bible stories. Atheists will go to church too. This evil man will also be a unifier between the three world religions and we will be seen as the only ones against an obvious new world peace. We will be slaughtered until Jesus comes.

Pretty isn't it but that's how I see it. Which is all applicable to an end-times discussion , not a scientific forum like this.

Sounds good, but I hope there is no need for the bombs and such... Just Dawkins should be enough to get people to hate Religion

If all I had to go on was what you said here I would say that the unification has already occurred.... As each religion is unified in the fight against evolution However this is just wild speculation and I am totally basing this on just the bolded part on what you said, so it probably doesn't even fit lol

[Artie]

"We wouldn't have Natural Selection or Survival of the Fittest."

"
.....How so?

"Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1]" Wikipedia. The only way to avoid evolution is to have no "change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations." Life would just die out.