Science Disproves Evolution

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Did God create the parasite that is, as I type this, growing in the eye of an African child, soon to blind her?

Or Malaria, the various forms of plague, AIDS, ebola, the spanish flu, polio, cholera, tapeworm, hookworm, gineau worms and every other parasite that specifically targets humans?

To look at it from your point of view though: God gave us the ability to reason and then designed geology, physics, genetics, and a myriad of other sciences to support evolution and old earth and no detectable divine intervention. Thus logically God wanted humans to discover these facts, leading to doubt in the literal bible as our knowledge progressed. Just like a loving parent might tell simple lies to a child to explain the world and go in more detail as they grow up.
So by denying evolution and demanding literal interpretation of the bible you are going AGAINST God's clear plan for humanity, refusing to grow up.
Its simple logic really.

 

[Marduk]

anyone else notice that as soon as someone talks about transitional fossils pahu goes on holiday ?
I wonder why that is

 

[Foster Zygote]

delete

 

[laca]

anyone else notice that as soon as someone talks about transitional fossils pahu goes on holiday ?
I wonder why that is

delete

Yea!

 

[Marduk]

Or Malaria, the various forms of plague, AIDS, ebola, the spanish flu, polio, cholera, tapeworm, hookworm, gineau worms and every other parasite that specifically targets humans?
.

Yes blame that nasty mesopotamian deity Enlil for that, he sent famine and pestilence to keep mankinds numbers in check, this was before he sent a great flood to finish the job, but Pahu probably doesn't know anything about that either. His brother Enki sent his son to save mankind at xmas too, but phhhhst, evolution doesn't exist, not even theological evolution for some people

 

[tsig]

Where is that vast amount of scientific evidence for evolution?



True. God's creation is truly wonderful, isn't it?

Would it still be wonderful if there was no god?

_{P answer: without god there's no universe}

 

[Tubbythin]

Not at all. Science has discovered that the universe and everything in it obeys certain laws of physics. Science has found no exceptions.

There are, in general, many many many many many many exceptions. For example, Newton's law of gravity is known to be wrong.

In reality, the Universe appears logical and thus should obey a certain set of laws. From observations, experimentation and the assumption that the Universe is indeed logical we construct our best guesses at what these laws are. They will never be proven true. That is impossible. We can only try to test them to breaking point.

What's particularly funny, however, is the fact that you are claiming these laws must always be obeyed and yet at the same time that an entity exists that can break these laws as and when "he" sees fit.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Wow! this is like a flashback to the 'good old days' of talk.origins in the 90s.

 

[Tubbythin]

Genesis mentions all creatures that crawl on the earth as being part of the ark's cargo. As I mentioned earlier, the whole scenario involving the ark was supernatural.

Lets get this straight. To defend claims that science disproves evolution you have to resort to claims from the supernatural?

 

[Simon39759]

Why do science textbooks continue to use the horse as a prime example of evolution, when the whole schema is demonstrably false? Why do they continue to teach our kids something that is not scientific? Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator of the American Museum of Natural History, has said:

“I admit that an awful lot of that (imaginary stories) has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable …”.
.

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, this is also, at best, a quote mine.
In fact, Eldrege suspects it to be an outright fabrication (From: The Triumph of Evolution: And the Failure of Creationism page 130 to 133).

He goes on to precise that his beef with the exhibit in question was that it represented evolution as a smooth continuous process and misrepresented the importance of stasis...


Considering the number of quotes that Pahu has brought to this thread, and the number that has been proved to be dishonest misrepresentation of what the scientists actually said, it is a bit surprising that Pahu will continue parroting them without a minimum of skepticism...
But, I guess, it is to be expected from somebody less interested with actual facts and more with bolstering his own mistaken beliefs...

 

[Tubbythin]

When you talk about magic, you are really referring to miracles. Evolution is a reliance on magic without a magician.

Completely false. Evolution is inevitable given life, enough genetic variation and time.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Before considering how life began, we must first understand the term “organic evolution.” Organic evolution, as theorized, is a naturally occurring, beneficial change that produces increasing and inheritable complexity. Increased complexity would be shown if the offspring of one form of life had a different and improved set of vital organs. This is sometimes called the molecules-to-man theory—or macroevolution. [See Figure 4 on page 6.] Microevolution, on the other hand, does not involve increasing complexity. It involves changes only in size, shape, or color, or minor genetic alterations caused by a few mutations. Macroevolution requires thousands of “just right” mutations. Microevolution can be thought of as “horizontal” (or even downward) change, whereas macroevolution, if it were ever observed, would involve an “upward,” beneficial change in complexity. Notice that microevolution plus time will not produce macroevolution. (micro + time ≠ macro)

Creationists and evolutionists agree that microevolution (and natural selection) occur. Minor change has been observed since history began. But notice how often evolutionists give evidence for microevolution to support macroevolution. It is macroevolution—which requires new abilities and increasing complexity, resulting from new genetic information—that is at the center of the creation-evolution controversy. Therefore, in this book, the term “organic evolution” will mean macroevolution. [From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences2.html#wp2752687]

Apart from the fact that Walt Brown makes up his own definition of evolution, I find his definition of microevolution as "...changes only in size, shape, or color, or minor genetic alterations caused by a few mutations" to be highly ironic. This is actually a perfect description of the evolution of humans and chimpanzees from their common ancestor.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Would it still be wonderful if there was no god?

In my opinion it is all the more wonderful. Our anthropomorphic conceits are exposed by the unanticipated truth of nature; that complexity is generated from the bottom up rather than from the top down. We are confronted by an incomprehensibly vast and dangerous, yet beautiful and awesome universe that was not made for us and does not care if we exist or not. We are left to explore this universe without a guide. We are utterly alone... all 6.87 billion of us.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Or Malaria, the various forms of plague, AIDS, ebola, the spanish flu, polio, cholera, tapeworm, hookworm, gineau worms and every other parasite that specifically targets humans?

"What a book a devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low and horridly cruel works of nature!"

 

[Elizabeth I]

Without evidence of transition!

Inside your very own head is evidence of transition. Go read up on where the hammer, anvil and stirrup bones of your middle ear came from.

Then check out why hiccups may show that you came from a fish.

Then find out why many of the great snakes still have rudimentary claws exactly where you might expect to find hind limbs.

Then go take a look at a whale's pelvis, and the internal vestigial hind limbs of the Mexican mole lizard.

I'll be in the corner, laughing quietly to myself.

Lets get this straight. To defend claims that science disproves evolution you have to resort to claims from the supernatural?

Yes, right after claiming that there is a set of physical laws that the Universe must obey.

 

[Simon39759]

Inside your very own head is evidence of transition. Go read up on where the hammer, anvil and stirrup bones of your middle ear came from.

Then check out why hiccups may show that you came from a fish.

Then find out why many of the great snakes still have rudimentary claws exactly where you might expect to find hind limbs.

Then go take a look at a whale's pelvis, and the internal vestigial hind limbs of the Mexican mole lizard.

And read up on the origin of the human chromosome 2.

Or the endogenous retro-viruses...

 

[154]

Inside your very own head is evidence of transition. Go read up on where the hammer, anvil and stirrup bones of your middle ear came from.

A marvelous creation.

Then check out why hiccups may show that you came from a fish.

Really? What do burps show?

Then find out why many of the great snakes still have rudimentary claws exactly where you might expect to find hind limbs.

Do tell! What is the wisdom from on high?

Then go take a look at a whale's pelvis, and the internal vestigial hind limbs of the Mexican mole lizard.

There is no limit to His creativity.

I'll be in the corner, laughing quietly to myself.

Probably still..

Yes, right after claiming that there is a set of physical laws that the Universe must obey.

Those laws are only our glimpses at the magnificent architecture of design.

 

[Brainache]

A marvelous creation.

Really? What do burps show?

Do tell! What is the wisdom from on high?

There is no limit to His creativity.

Probably still..

Those laws are only our glimpses at the magnificent architecture of design.

I will never understand why people like you, 154, prefer to believe the ancient stories collected in an old book over the evidence of their own senses.

Can you explain to me why the literal truth of the ancient Jewish creation myths is so important to you? There certainly is no evidence for them and tons (literally) of evidence against them, but still you go with what the old book says, instead of what reality teaches us.

Why?

 

[Tricky]

"It frightens me to think of the state of learning in the world if everybody had your driving curiosity."

--- Henry Drummond in "Inherit the Wind"
​

 

[154]

I will never understand why people like you, 154, prefer to believe the ancient stories collected in an old book over the evidence of their own senses.

Can you explain to me why the literal truth of the ancient Jewish creation myths is so important to you? There certainly is no evidence for them and tons (literally) of evidence against them, but still you go with what the old book says, instead of what reality teaches us.

Why?

I have thoroughly examined the evidence and found it most compelling and persuasive.

I have no other interest or motivation. Truth.

One great example of the excellent case:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html
Check it out if you want. I'm not going to twist your arm. It is excellent.
Give it an objective, open-minded consideration... or not.