Why (and how) the vast evolution conspiracy? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Why (and how) the vast evolution conspiracy?


Gunhaver
02-24-2012, 14:26
For the members here that believe the study of evolution is inherently flawed, I have a question. Is everyone involved in paleontology, geology and many more fields too numerous to mention in on the conspiracy?

steveksux
02-24-2012, 14:42
And don't forget they are busy twisting facts to suit their agenda, even those that disprove their theories.

Obviously nobody wants to become a scientific pariah like Einstein for disproving Newton's widely accepted theory of space. Got to preserve the status quo at all costs!

Randy

Vic Hays
02-24-2012, 16:46
They are ridiculed if they do not agree with evolution.

Evolution is a way to explain creation without God.

Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

The Bible even predicted it:

II Peter 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Gunhaver
02-24-2012, 17:12
They are ridiculed if they do not agree with evolution.

Evolution is a way to explain creation without God.

Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

The Bible even predicted it:

II Peter 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Ridiculed by whom? Who exactly is at the heart of this conspiracy? There would have to be someone at the top that knows the truth and is working very hard to keep everyone else in the dark.

How do you get hundreds of thousands of scientists in every field to agree on a lie that's so easily disproved?

ArtificialGrape
02-24-2012, 17:31
They are ridiculed if they do not agree with evolution.

Specious at best <-- an atheist showing a little more kindness than your charge of "pure BS".

The geologists that first documented the faunal succession (fossils changing over time) were religious men such as William Smith of England. Not showing interest in any religious implication he merely documented the fact that the fossil record changed over time. Given that he was doing this 60+ years before Darwin's Origin, it's pretty hard to argue that he was trying to support evolution.

Physics underwent a major paradigm shift with quantum mechanics in the early 20th century as did geology with plate tectonics in the mid 20th century. Physicists and geologists had to let go of some long held understandings because that's what the evidence demanded.

You think that physicists and geologists have more loyalty to a theory in biology than to a theory in their own fields?

Evolution is still around because after 150 years not only is there a lack of evidence to falsify it, the supporting evidence continues to pile up. When Darwin was working on Origin Archaeopteryx had not been discovered, Tiktaalik had not been discovered, the Burgess Shale had not been uncovered, DNA had not been discovered, and yet not one of these falsifies evolution, in fact, they all add to the mountain of evidence supporting it.

-ArtificialGrape

ArtificialGrape
02-24-2012, 17:32
Who exactly is at the heart of this conspiracy?

I suspect the Cigarette Smoking Man.

-ArtificialGrape

Geko45
02-24-2012, 18:55
I suspect the Cigarette Smoking Man.

http://www.venganza.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/believe_800.jpg

Gunhaver
02-24-2012, 18:55
Vic, I can't say I'm surprised to see that the authors of a hard to swallow story would predict that others would find it hard to swallow. I was raised with the bible every day. I know it front to back. My old man could find his ass with both hands, a flashlight and a bible. You have a lot of catching up to do. Lots of unanswered questions on this and other topics. To bow out is to admit defeat. C'mon man, GTs theists are counting on you!

Vic Hays
02-24-2012, 20:58
How do you get hundreds of thousands of scientists in every field to agree on a lie that's so easily disproved?

They don't all agree.

Kentak
02-24-2012, 21:05
"Evolution is a way to explain creation without MAGIC."

Fixed it for you.

Gunhaver
02-24-2012, 21:22
They don't all agree.

Ok, let me rephrase the question. Why is it that the scientists that get the grants and the investors and teach at all the major universities and write textbooks and make discoveries that directly benefit the medical community are all in agreement about evolution and the ones who aren't in agreement are relegated to doing banana videos on youtube with Kirk Cameron and being told to hit the road by school boards across the country? In other words, why are you losing this debate so badly if the evidence supports your side?

Sarge1400
02-24-2012, 21:26
"Evolution is a way to explain creation without MAGIC."

Fixed it for you.

Right, and reality is for people who can't handle drugs.

Animal Mother
02-24-2012, 21:39
They don't all agree.
Could you share any scientist's conclusion, based on observation and experimentation, published in the scientific literature which reject evolutionary theory?

Tilley
02-24-2012, 22:54
Could you share any scientist's conclusion, based on observation and experimentation, published in the scientific literature which reject evolutionary theory?

Tilley

Kingarthurhk
02-24-2012, 23:23
You know the most amazing thing happened to me recently. There was an oil spot in my garage. About a week later, I went in there, and there was a roller skate. I thought that was interesting. A week later, I went in there and the roller skate had become a skate board. Then about a month later that skate board became a Yugo. About two weeks later that Yugo became a VW Bug. You know a month after that I had a huge 4x4 Toyota Tundra LTD? I guess evolution does work.:whistling:

Animal Mother
02-24-2012, 23:26
You know the most amazing thing happened to me recently. There was an oil spot in my garage. About a week later, I went in there, and there was a roller skate. I thought that was interesting. A week later, I went in there and the roller skate had become a skate board. Then about a month later that skate board became a Yugo. About two weeks later that Yugo became a VW Bug. You know a month after that I had a huge 4x4 Toyota Tundra LTD? I guess evolution does work.:whistling:Is this really what creationist are reduced to? If evolution is false and so easily disproven, why hasn't anyone done it? Why do they instead rely on misrepresenting the science and dismissing the evidence?

Kingarthurhk
02-24-2012, 23:30
Is this really what creationist are reduced to? If evolution is false and so easily disproven, why hasn't anyone done it? Why do they instead rely on misrepresenting the science and dismissing the evidence?

Ironic. It is an unproven idea, there has been plenty of evidence to the contrary; but it is either ignored or a group of appologists do their very best to try to explain it away.

Animal Mother
02-24-2012, 23:31
Ironic. It is an unproven idea, there has been plenty of evidence to the contrary; but it is either ignored or a group of appologists do their very best to try to explain it away. Yes, creationism is all those things. That was my point.

ArtificialGrape
02-24-2012, 23:33
You know the most amazing thing happened to me recently. There was an oil spot in my garage. About a week later, I went in there, and there was a roller skate. I thought that was interesting. A week later, I went in there and the roller skate had become a skate board. Then about a month later that skate board became a Yugo. About two weeks later that Yugo became a VW Bug. You know a month after that I had a huge 4x4 Toyota Tundra LTD? I guess evolution does work.:whistling:
I do accept that this accurately captures your understanding of the theory of evolution.

-ArtificialGrape

Kingarthurhk
02-24-2012, 23:35
Yes, creationism is all those things. That was my point.

That is my point regarding evolution. I have found that only one or two Atheists here are versed on the topic; Grape being the chief among them. The rest simply seek it out with a religious fervance to validate their need to explain away God even though they don't understand it all. It is almost as if they flock to it like some sort of sacriment.

Animal Mother
02-24-2012, 23:40
That is my point regarding evolution. Your point is wrong then.
I have found that only one or two Atheists here are versed on the topic; Grape being the chief among them. The rest simply seek it out with a religious fervance to validate their need to explain away God even though they don't understand it all. It is almost as if they flock to it like some sort of sacriment. Your findings are wrong as well. You are correct that AG is very well versed in evolutionary theory, which allows him to explain the evidence for evolution quite well. Sadly, the creationist contingent seems able to respond only with insults and misrepresentations of the facts, like pretending that non-organic objects evolve.

Altaris
02-24-2012, 23:59
You know the most amazing thing happened to me recently. There was an oil spot in my garage. About a week later, I went in there, and there was a roller skate. I thought that was interesting. A week later, I went in there and the roller skate had become a skate board. Then about a month later that skate board became a Yugo. About two weeks later that Yugo became a VW Bug. You know a month after that I had a huge 4x4 Toyota Tundra LTD? I guess evolution does work.:whistling:

Which one of those things reproduces and passes it genetic code on down to the next?

TalkToTheGlock
02-25-2012, 00:28
That is my point regarding evolution. I have found that only one or two Atheists here are versed on the topic; Grape being the chief among them. The rest simply seek it out with a religious fervance to validate their need to explain away God even though they don't understand it all. It is almost as if they flock to it like some sort of sacriment.


Or it's the fact that some of us would rather not waste our time debating with zombies.


iPhone 4

Gunhaver
02-25-2012, 04:05
That is my point regarding evolution. I have found that only one or two Atheists here are versed on the topic; Grape being the chief among them. The rest simply seek it out with a religious fervance to validate their need to explain away God even though they don't understand it all. It is almost as if they flock to it like some sort of sacriment.

:rofl:
Are you kidding? You just suggested that roller skates can evolve and then you say that most atheists don't understand evolution? Can you cite any example of any atheist here showing as poor an understanding of evolution as you just displayed?

id1otbox
02-25-2012, 04:31
Micro-evolution is seen/proven all the time. I guess by simply extending the time line all this proof no longer has any meaning?

Domesticated silver fox. Look it up. Only took 50 years to make (through experimental evolution) an animal that behaves and looks completely different then what it was breed from. Or how about Theodore Garlands experiment with house mice. If you don't like that one there is also the study of the stickleback fish. Lenskis ecoli experiments?

If you don't trust scientists read through ancient texts descriptions of dogs and cats and then compare them to what you see in your town today...

I don't get what the conflict is with believing in god and believing in evolution. Weird.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/30/science/new-breed-of-fox-as-tame-as-a-*****cat.html

http://cbsu.tc.cornell.edu/ccgr/behaviour/Index.htm

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

http://www.biology.ucr.edu/people/faculty/Garland/SwEA98SE.pdf

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/07/29/rspb.2010.0923.full

Those who think evolution is a fallacy please visit the links posted above and tell me exactly where incorrect conclusions have been drawn.

id1otbox
02-25-2012, 04:57
I have more!

How about that flu virus that comes around every year but is slightly different?

How about the reason why when you get a sinus infection now you are prescribed augmentin instead of penicillin?

How about antibiotic resistant tuberculosis?



Any takers? How did these changes come about and what should we call the process?

Gunhaver
02-25-2012, 05:08
I have more!

How about that flu virus that comes around every year but is slightly different?

How about the reason why when you get a sinus infection now you are prescribed augmentin instead of penicillin?

How about antibiotic resistant tuberculosis?



Any takers? How did these changes come about and what should we call the process?

And how about the fact that the ark couldn't possibly have held one pair of each of the 10,000 species of birds so we have to concede that only a few birds were brought on board and they provided the genetic material to flourish into everything from penguin to ostrich to humming bird to bald eagle... but that's micro evolution, not macro evolution. :whistling:

lomfs24
02-25-2012, 09:49
That is my point regarding evolution. I have found that only one or two Atheists here are versed on the topic; Grape being the chief among them. The rest simply seek it out with a religious fervance to validate their need to explain away God even though they don't understand it all. It is almost as if they flock to it like some sort of sacriment.

I find this comment very interesting. I would be one of those people who freely admit that I do not know the theory of evolution very well. What I can say with certainty is that from studying the Bible as well as other historical documents that the miracles in the Bible have an extremely high probability of never happening, that the God in the Bible as portrayed by the Bible has an extremely high probability of not existing. And that religion in general has been devised as a way to control man by fear and oppression.

Given that God most likely does not exist and someone else has an answer, such as evolution, I think the only thing left to do is investigate it. And as I am doing so I am finding that folks like AG on this forum seem to have a pretty good grasp of it and it's beginning to be pretty water tight.

Vic Hays
02-25-2012, 10:32
Ok, let me rephrase the question. Why is it that the scientists that get the grants and the investors and teach at all the major universities and write textbooks and make discoveries that directly benefit the medical community are all in agreement about evolution and the ones who aren't in agreement are relegated to doing banana videos on youtube with Kirk Cameron and being told to hit the road by school boards across the country? In other words, why are you losing this debate so badly if the evidence supports your side?

Your right, it does sound suspicious that the people with the money are only funding evolution.

It sounds like a conflict of interest to me. It is like the tobacco companies funding a study on the diseases caused by tobacco.

"The love of money is the root of all evil."

The evil one would like to have people give up faith in the Creator.

muscogee
02-25-2012, 10:55
Specious at best <-- an atheist showing a little more kindness than your charge of "pure BS".

The geologists that first documented the faunal succession (fossils changing over time) were religious men such as William Smith of England. Not showing interest in any religious implication he merely documented the fact that the fossil record changed over time. Given that he was doing this 60+ years before Darwin's Origin, it's pretty hard to argue that he was trying to support evolution.

Physics underwent a major paradigm shift with quantum mechanics in the early 20th century as did geology with plate tectonics in the mid 20th century. Physicists and geologists had to let go of some long held understandings because that's what the evidence demanded.

You think that physicists and geologists have more loyalty to a theory in biology than to a theory in their own fields?

Evolution is still around because after 150 years not only is there a lack of evidence to falsify it, the supporting evidence continues to pile up. When Darwin was working on Origin Archaeopteryx had not been discovered, Tiktaalik had not been discovered, the Burgess Shale had not been uncovered, DNA had not been discovered, and yet not one of these falsifies evolution, in fact, they all add to the mountain of evidence supporting it.

-ArtificialGrape

Absolutely excellent response. One of the best I have seen in this forum.

muscogee
02-25-2012, 11:14
That is my point regarding evolution. I have found that only one or two Atheists here are versed on the topic; Grape being the chief among them. The rest simply seek it out with a religious fervance to validate their need to explain away God even though they don't understand it all. It is almost as if they flock to it like some sort of sacriment.

Unlike many theists, I don't hold forth on the subject much because it's outside my area of expertise. However, if my alternative is the Garden of Eden story, there's no contest. I need to see evidence that snakes walked around and talked to people before I can take that seriously. Evolution explains why snakes crawl, "men know death", and "women know pain in childbirth" much better than the story of God having a tantrum several thousand years ago and still taking revenge on the descendants of the first humans and one of the first snakes. I don't see how rational adults can take the Garden of Eden story seriously nor use it to try and prove any point.

Japle
02-25-2012, 13:17
Originally Posted by Gunhaver:
Ok, let me rephrase the question. Why is it that the scientists that get the grants and the investors and teach at all the major universities and write textbooks and make discoveries that directly benefit the medical community are all in agreement about evolution and the ones who aren't in agreement are relegated to doing banana videos on youtube with Kirk Cameron and being told to hit the road by school boards across the country? In other words, why are you losing this debate so badly if the evidence supports your side?
Answer by Vic:
Your right, it does sound suspicious that the people with the money are only funding evolution.

It sounds like a conflict of interest to me. It is like the tobacco companies funding a study on the diseases caused by tobacco.

The reason evolution research is funded and religion research isnít funded is because thereís nothing in religion that can be researched.
Itís all stories, legends and fantasies from stone and bronze age people with no knowledge of science.

ArtificialGrape
02-25-2012, 13:17
Unlike many theists, I don't hold forth on the subject much because it's outside my area of expertise. However, if my alternative is the Garden of Eden story, there's no contest. I need to see evidence that snakes walked around and talked to people before I can take that seriously. Evolution explains why snakes crawl, "men know death", and "women know pain in childbirth" much better than the story of God having a tantrum several thousand years ago and still taking revenge on the descendants of the first humans and one of the first snakes. I don't see how rational adults can take the Garden of Eden story seriously nor use it to try and prove any point.
This is an important, and often missed, point.

Atheists are under no obligation to provide alternate explanations to anything that religion claims to explain. Religious claims can be completely dismissed on their own lack of merit without knowing, or perhaps even caring, what the actual cause was.

-ArtificialGrape

Vic Hays
02-26-2012, 12:51
The reason evolution research is funded and religion research isnít funded is because thereís nothing in religion that can be researched.
Itís all stories, legends and fantasies from stone and bronze age people with no knowledge of science.

First off it is not evolution research that is funded, it is the people that profess evolution that are funded. It is just like the people that profess global warming are funded and those that profess natural temperature variability are persecuted. It is very political.

Jesus came to this earth and went to the cross that he could save as many as were willing. His principles are Love, Truth, and individual freedom. This is the character of God.

satan is making his attempt to take as many humans with him as he can. his principles are force, deception, and enslavement. The theory of evolution gave people a way to discredit creation by God. God will allow those who want to to totally believe a lie because he allows them their freedom to do so, however, God is the source of life. We do not have life in ourselves, it is the gift of God.

A time is coming when it will be time for God to set up His kingdom. When this occurs the consequences of choice will be seen. Some will be extremely happy and some will be extremely sad. All will say that God is just.

Romans 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

Animal Mother
02-26-2012, 13:19
First off it is not evolution research that is funded, it is the people that profess evolution that are funded. It is just like the people that profess global warming are funded and those that profess natural temperature variability are persecuted. It is very political. I suppose there's little or no point to asking for any evidence of this supposed prejudice.

Gunhaver
02-26-2012, 17:00
First off it is not evolution research that is funded, it is the people that profess evolution that are funded. It is just like the people that profess global warming are funded and those that profess natural temperature variability are persecuted. It is very political.

Jesus came to this earth and went to the cross that he could save as many as were willing. His principles are Love, Truth, and individual freedom. This is the character of God.

satan is making his attempt to take as many humans with him as he can. his principles are force, deception, and enslavement. The theory of evolution gave people a way to discredit creation by God. God will allow those who want to to totally believe a lie because he allows them their freedom to do so, however, God is the source of life. We do not have life in ourselves, it is the gift of God.

A time is coming when it will be time for God to set up His kingdom. When this occurs the consequences of choice will be seen. Some will be extremely happy and some will be extremely sad. All will say that God is just.

Romans 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

So are you saying that Satan manipulated any science that contradicts creationism to do just that? One would assume that an omnipotent god could tell the truth better than the devil could lie.

Vic Hays
02-26-2012, 20:19
So are you saying that Satan manipulated any science that contradicts creationism to do just that? One would assume that an omnipotent god could tell the truth better than the devil could lie.

satan manipulates just about anything he wants to within what is allowed him. We can look behind the curtain a bit to see how he is allowed to go only so far.

Job 1:11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.
1:12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.

Altaris
02-26-2012, 21:00
satan manipulates just about anything he wants to within what is allowed him. We can look behind the curtain a bit to see how he is allowed to go only so far.


So why is he only allowed to go so far? Does god prevent him from going all the way? If so, why not just prevent him from doing anything?

Based on your responses from other threads it sounds like satan can do just about anything except for write/edit the bible.

Vic Hays
02-27-2012, 11:58
So why is he only allowed to go so far? Does god prevent him from going all the way? If so, why not just prevent him from doing anything?

Based on your responses from other threads it sounds like satan can do just about anything except for write/edit the bible.

satan is allowed to misinterpret the Bible not edit it.

A lot of people ask why is this happening? Why the battle?

The answer is that God is on trial. satan has cast suspicion on God's motives. God is letting things play out to show that God's principles of Love, Truth, and individual liberty are superior to satans rebellion and deceptions.

So there are rules. satan stands as the accuser of the brethren just like when he accused Job and God limits him to what he can do. It will be worth it all. This is the promise we have of God, who cannot lie.

Revelation 12:10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

Altaris
02-27-2012, 12:04
satan is allowed to misinterpret the Bible not edit it.

A lot of people ask why is this happening? Why the battle?

The answer is that God is on trial. satan has cast suspicion on God's motives. God is letting things play out to show that God's principles of Love, Truth, and individual liberty are superior to satans rebellion and deceptions.

So there are rules. satan stands as the accuser of the brethren just like when he accused Job and God limits him to what he can do. It will be worth it all. This is the promise we have of God, who cannot lie.

Revelation 12:10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

Wasnít satan around before the bible was written by imperfect humans? So you are saying there is no way he could have edited it before it was even written? Or that there was no way he could have manipulated the uneducated farmers into writing something different?

Gunhaver
02-27-2012, 14:48
satan manipulates just about anything he wants to within what is allowed him. We can look behind the curtain a bit to see how he is allowed to go only so far.

Job 1:11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.
1:12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.

So Satan has manipulated the fossil and geological record as well as the whole of biology to give the illusion of evolution? Or does he somehow possess the minds of all who study those fields to make them unilaterally agree on evolution? This is directly related to the topic of my thread so a somewhat less than vague answer would be nice.

Vic Hays
02-27-2012, 15:55
Wasnít satan around before the bible was written by imperfect humans? So you are saying there is no way he could have edited it before it was even written? Or that there was no way he could have manipulated the uneducated farmers into writing something different?

God protected His Word. satan has been allowed to spin it, but not change it.

Here is an example:

Luke 4:9 And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:
4:10 For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee:
4:11 And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

satan quoted scripture and left the part out to keep thee in all thy ways. This puts the spin on it that God will protect us from willful acts of our own like jumping off a tall building.

Psalms 91:11 For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.

English
02-27-2012, 15:57
I am afraid that lots of people here just don't get it. If it was easy to believe in God anyone could do it and then how could God tell which humans were worth saving and which weren't? So God needed to manufacture a whole lot of misleading facts to make it harder to believe in God or he had to get some other supernatural entity to do so. The second option was obviously superior because Satan would be able to use his own initiative to keep producing misleading facts that would lead people to create false theories and save God the iritation of having to do it all himself.

I hope this helps misguided people like AG, AM and others to understand the true nature of things.

I hope it helps people like Vic Hayes to be more sympathetic towards Darwin who started out as the ordained son of an ordained Minister and after half a lifetime of dicovering Satan's facts and experiencing the painful and drawn out death of his daughter lost his faith. Even then it was many more years before he published the Origin of Species because he did not want to offend religious people. But friends who had also been led astray by Satan's facts persuaded him to do so from the sin of pride as otherwise Wallace would have been known to history as the founder of the theory of evolution.

We can only hope that God, who is said to be merciful to some, though no one really knows because no one can know the mind of God, has not sent Darwin to Hell for what was little more than an equiring mind and the ability to connect a multitude of facts with a theory which was contrary to the received wisdom of the age.

English

PS I forgot the point of this thread. The above explains why science looks like a conspiracy of scientists but is not. The conspiracy belongs to God and Satan and the majority of scientists have just been fooled by Satan's excelent deceptions. Incidentally, Satan is getting more and more stressed as the number of scientists grows exponentially and keep thinking up new ideas which Satan then has to manufacture evidence for. This could be a race against time! Will the science overload crack Satan before the Day of Judgement? What will scientists do when new theories which are consistent with all previous facts do not fid the new facts they predict. Will scientists blow the whole conspiracy and tell everyone that God does exist after all and to start believing very strongly before it is too late.

Tomorrow, or next year, the latest developments in this thrilling tale.

lomfs24
02-27-2012, 16:11
So God needed to manufacture a whole lot of misleading facts to make it harder to believe in God
So God lied to us to see which people needed to be saved? :wow:

or he had to get some other supernatural entity to do so. The second option was obviously superior because Satan would be able to use his own initiative to keep producing misleading facts that would lead people to create false theories and save God the iritation of having to do it all himself. Ah, God was lazy so he created the minions to do his dirt work of lying. :wow:

Do you really believe this crock?

I hope this helps misguided people like AG, AM and others to understand the true nature of things.
I think the misguided are probably a lot smarter than you hoped for.

I hope it helps people like Vic Hayes to be more sympathetic towards Darwin who started out as the ordained son of an ordained Minister and after half a lifetime of dicovering Satan's facts and experiencing the painful and drawn out death of his daughter lost his faith. Even then it was many more years before he published the Origin of Species because he did not want to offend religious people. But friends who had also been led astray by Satan's facts persuaded him to do so from the sin of pride as otherwise Wallace would have been known to history as the founder of the theory of evolution.
I would hope that people like Vic would be smart enough to see through this.

We can only hope that God, who is said to be merciful to some, though no one really knows because no one can know the mind of God, has not sent Darwin to Hell for what was little more than an equiring mind and the ability to connect a multitude of facts with a theory which was contrary to the received wisdom of the age.

English I would hope that God wouldn't lie to us to get his story told.

Bren
02-27-2012, 16:15
For the members here that believe the study of evolution is inherently flawed, I have a question. Is everyone involved in paleontology, geology and many more fields too numerous to mention in on the conspiracy?

What's the point? - fact evidence can't overcome faith, otherwise it would be called "fact" instead of "faith." I can get into debating many things, but debating against creationism gets old quick. It's like debating alien abductions with guys wearing tinfoil hates to ward them off. In the end, they will believe what they want to believe, not what evidence supports, otherwise they'd be on your side to begin with.

Interesting though - faith is, by definition, believing in something not supported by evidence. How is that not funny?

Gunhaver
02-27-2012, 16:29
What's the point? - fact evidence can't overcome faith, otherwise it would be called "fact" instead of "faith." I can get into debating many things, but debating against creationism gets old quick. It's like debating alien abductions with guys wearing tinfoil hates to ward them off. In the end, they will believe what they want to believe, not what evidence supports, otherwise they'd be on your side to begin with.

Interesting though - faith is, by definition, believing in something not supported by evidence. How is that not funny?

The point is to expose the same old tired lies that we hear over and over again. It's like politics, you have those on each side and those in the middle who are undecided. When the undecided see someone say something misleading or downright stupid like, "My roller skate evolved into a skateboard" or "The odds of life starting out on it's own are astronomical" then there should be someone there to provide the more rational argument. Those people are the biggest reason that religion is loosing it's grasp in the educated world and churches are being forced to look to places like Africa to find people to exploit.

English
02-27-2012, 16:54
So God lied to us to see which people needed to be saved? :wow:
Ah, God was lazy so he created the minions to do his dirt work of lying. :wow:

Do you really believe this crock?
I think the misguided are probably a lot smarter than you hoped for.
I would hope that people like Vic would be smart enough to see through this.
I would hope that God wouldn't lie to us to get his story told.

lomfs24,
No I don't believe a word of it. I was just trying to put the implications of what Vic Hayes and others have been telling us about the relationship between facts, theories and truth more clearly. Read what they have been saying about Satan planting evidence to lead us astray. Consider that if God is as powerful as they claim then he could destroy Satan if he wished and therefore we must assume that Satan has a useful purpose to God. What do you think it could be? I believe the Bible tells us that faith must over ride reason, but scientists everywhere are lettting reason over ride faith. That is directly contrary to what is claimed to be the word of God and must therefore be qualified as evil or sinful - I confess I am not up on the precise definitions of these things as I have trusted reason above faith since the age of about 9.

On your last sentence; why should you presume any such thing? Do you think you could know the mind of God. By definition it is unknowable and so you can't understand his strategy or even what to do to please him if you assume he exists.

English

Vic Hays
02-27-2012, 21:00
I am afraid that lots of people here just don't get it. If it was easy to believe in God anyone could do it and then how could God tell which humans were worth saving and which weren't? So God needed to manufacture a whole lot of misleading facts to make it harder to believe in God or he had to get some other supernatural entity to do so. The second option was obviously superior because Satan would be able to use his own initiative to keep producing misleading facts that would lead people to create false theories and save God the iritation of having to do it all himself.



Actually God allows those who would rather believe a lie to find one that suits them. There is plenty of philosophy and deception to go around.


2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

BTW No one has answered how many times did living cells or whatever have to evolve before one figured out how to reproduce itself. Certainly science with all of its knowledge can give a definitive answer. Science is infallible right?

ArtificialGrape
02-27-2012, 21:35
BTW No one has answered how many times did living cells or whatever have to evolve before one figured out how to reproduce itself. Certainly science with all of its knowledge can give a definitive answer.
I know that critical thinking isn't exactly your forte, but you have to at least try. Given your proclaimed interest in science, how would you suggest science would go about answering that question? What evidence would you suppose would have been left behind with a reasonable chance of being discovered?

Science is infallible right?
Who is making this claim, or should we just file this under "Strawmen, Creationist"? Infallible... you must be thinking of the Bible.

-ArtificialGrape

lomfs24
02-27-2012, 22:14
lomfs24,
No I don't believe a word of it. OK, just so we are on the same page. :supergrin:
That being said, the rest of this is arguing just to argue, right? And doesn't really need to be addressed? I mean, we might as well be arguing over the facts and theories of pixie dust.

I was just trying to put the implications of what Vic Hayes and others have been telling us about the relationship between facts, theories and truth more clearly. Read what they have been saying about Satan planting evidence to lead us astray. Consider that if God is as powerful as they claim then he could destroy Satan if he wished and therefore we must assume that Satan has a useful purpose to God. What do you think it could be? I believe the Bible tells us that faith must over ride reason, but scientists everywhere are lettting reason over ride faith. That is directly contrary to what is claimed to be the word of God and must therefore be qualified as evil or sinful - I confess I am not up on the precise definitions of these things as I have trusted reason above faith since the age of about 9.

On your last sentence; why should you presume any such thing? Do you think you could know the mind of God. By definition it is unknowable and so you can't understand his strategy or even what to do to please him if you assume he exists.

English My last sentence was placed there to add emphasis to my previous statements. In one place believers spout that God cannot lie. But in another place say So God needed to manufacture a whole lot of misleading facts to make it harder to believe in God. Now it is apparent that I misunderstood the context of your comment. But, none the less, I have heard that exact same argument in trying to discredit evolution.

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled arguing. :supergrin:

janice6
02-27-2012, 22:24
Wrong forum

Bren
02-28-2012, 05:25
The point is to expose the same old tired lies that we hear over and over again. It's like politics, you have those on each side and those in the middle who are undecided. When the undecided see someone say something misleading or downright stupid like, "My roller skate evolved into a skateboard" or "The odds of life starting out on it's own are astronomical" then there should be someone there to provide the more rational argument. Those people are the biggest reason that religion is loosing it's grasp in the educated world and churches are being forced to look to places like Africa to find people to exploit.

Many years ago, I was a member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (Later, the police might release you from the police) and other skeptical groups. Then I realized fighting against religion, in one of the most religiously saturated 1st world countries on earth, is almost as big a waste of time in my life as being religious. Same with other issues I was tempted to be an activist about, in my younger days. I just got tired of it.

English
02-28-2012, 10:42
OK, just so we are on the same page. :supergrin:
That being said, the rest of this is arguing just to argue, right? And doesn't really need to be addressed? I mean, we might as well be arguing over the facts and theories of pixie dust.

...

I actually think arguing about religion is just the same as arguing about the facts and theories of pixie dust. I wasn't really arguing just to argue but to point out the inconsistencies in the present religious argument. That is quite separate from the religious failure to understand the meaning of "proof", "theories", "evidence", and a determined refusal to investigate the evidence of science.

English

Vic Hays
02-28-2012, 17:20
I know that critical thinking isn't exactly your forte, but you have to at least try. Given your proclaimed interest in science, how would you suggest science would go about answering that question? What evidence would you suppose would have been left behind with a reasonable chance of being discovered?

-ArtificialGrape

No one saw the first critters evolve from inorganic matter yet evolution is called a fact that cannot be questioned?

I think there is plenty of room to doubt evolution.

I suppose that most of you do not know that according to evolution theory that all of the Phyla appeared in the same period. There was no evolutionary tree with one form evolving into another. According to the model it was more like a lawn than a tree.

So why do you suppose that a tree is presented to neophytes to make eevolution seem more believable?

Geko45
02-28-2012, 18:15
I look forward to seeing all my athiests friends at the upcoming Vast Evolutionary Conspiracy Annual Convention in Vegas next month!

:wavey:

(Oops, was I not supposed to mention that?)

lomfs24
02-28-2012, 18:18
No one saw the first critters evolve from inorganic matter yet evolution is called a fact that cannot be questioned? Vic, could you take a moment out of your busy day and quickly explain to me, in your own words, the difference between a "fact" and a "theory". You seem to interchange them regularly without realizing that they are two very different concepts.

I think there is plenty of room to doubt evolution.
Yep, that's how science works, only scientists take it a step further. You pick a part of the theory of evolution that you feel is incorrect, and you set out to disprove it. Once accomplished the theory will have been toppled. As of yet, that has not been accomplished. Which means, the theory still stands. Unfortunately, the book of Genesis does not constitute scientific proof to topple evolution.

Now, before you start in about frauds there is somethings you should know about frauds. If they were a fraud they were never really part of the theory of evolution, even if they were presented that way. And if you work hard at discrediting a fraud, you have not toppled the theory of evolution, you have toppled the fraud.

Gunhaver
02-28-2012, 18:42
No one saw the first critters evolve from inorganic matter yet evolution is called a fact that cannot be questioned?

I think there is plenty of room to doubt evolution.

I suppose that most of you do not know that according to evolution theory that all of the Phyla appeared in the same period. There was no evolutionary tree with one form evolving into another. According to the model it was more like a lawn than a tree.

So why do you suppose that a tree is presented to neophytes to make eevolution seem more believable?

I actually did know that. That was the Cambrian period and was the most interesting of them all IMO because of the lack of data we have from that time. It lasted about 55 million years and the thing is, the further back you look the less evidence there is so we don't have as much information about that time as we do about the more popular dinosaur rich Mesozoic era. The features used to classify animals are much more apparent in larger, more recent vertebral critters than in the simple soft bodied swimmers that left less behind to be fossilized. It's only because of mass underwater mudslides that buried entire acres of animals at once like in the Burgess shale that we know what little we do.

So yes, the Phyla mostly appeared in the same period. That period happened to last 55 million years which is a good long run on any time scale where a lot can happen. Also consider the relative simplicity of the animals that developed during that time and it's no more unusual than any other period.

And speaking of the Burgess shale, did you know that not only is there not a single creature found there that is still alive today but also no hint of any vertebral animal, no terrestrial animals and not a single leaf or terrestrial plant fossil to be found in that geological layer. It's as if life didn't exist on land at all during that time period and not a single animal had developed a backbone yet. Now how do you suppose that is?

muscogee
02-28-2012, 18:48
I think there is plenty of room to doubt evolution.

There is somewhat more room to doubt Genesis. Do you really believe snakes used to walk around and talk to people?

steveksux
02-28-2012, 21:44
No one saw the first critters evolve from inorganic matter yet evolution is called a fact that cannot be questioned?The fact is that evolution makes no such claim, and IN FACT evolution has nothing to do with life arising from inorganic matter.

I think there is plenty of room to doubt evolution.I have no doubt you do think that. If only because you'te totally clueless (demonstrated above) about what evolution IS.

I suppose that most of you do not know that according to evolution theory that all of the Phyla appeared in the same period. There was no evolutionary tree with one form evolving into another. According to the model it was more like a lawn than a tree.Interestingly enough, the folks that study evolution for a living never heard of that either... :rofl:

So why do you suppose that a tree is presented to neophytes to make eevolution seem more believable?
Some might suppose its presented as a tree because that's what the theory says. Kudos for not letting facts sneak into your arguments. Even the hint of propriety must be scrupulously avoided.

Randy

ArtificialGrape
02-29-2012, 00:05
No one saw the first critters evolve from inorganic matter yet evolution is called a fact that cannot be questioned?
Who is calling evolution "a fact that cannot be questioned"? You will find sacrosanct within religion, not science.

I think there is plenty of room to doubt evolution.

Doubt (skepticism) can be healthy, but not when it becomes nothing more than an argument from ignorance.

I suppose that most of you do not know that according to evolution theory that all of the Phyla appeared in the same period.

There are many untrue things that I do not "know". Could you elaborate on this "same period". If you're referring to the Cambrian Explosion, this "explosion" took place over an 80 million year span (600 to 520 million years ago) which is hardly over the same period.

There was no evolutionary tree with one form evolving into another. According to the model it was more like a lawn than a tree.
Any chance that you would like to share current research where this evolutionary lawn model is still advanced? The notion of an evolutionary lawn was generally within the echinoderms, and not "all of the Phyla" that you have claimed, and by the mid 1980s it was pretty clearly inaccurate. Though I welcome being proven wrong -- it's an opportunity to learn.

So why do you suppose that a tree is presented to neophytes to make eevolution seem more believable?

I would suppose that the tree is presented to neophytes because it is the most accurate depiction of how evolution progresses -- you may want to start over with a primer (glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1355802).

Why do you suppose that so many Creationists are determined to bear false witness against evolution?

You're not holding a grudge that fellow Seventh-Day Adventist George Price had his Flood Geology so thoroughly refuted by reality are you? Or worse yet, you're not still clinging to his New Geology, are you?

-ArtificialGrape

Animal Mother
02-29-2012, 01:18
No one saw the first critters evolve from inorganic matter yet evolution is called a fact that cannot be questioned?

I think there is plenty of room to doubt evolution.

I suppose that most of you do not know that according to evolution theory that all of the Phyla appeared in the same period. There was no evolutionary tree with one form evolving into another. According to the model it was more like a lawn than a tree.

So why do you suppose that a tree is presented to neophytes to make eevolution seem more believable? This silliness has been savaged enough, I'm not going to pile on. But, I am curious, why are you so quick to respond to theological questions and challenges yet you keep make these absurdly wrong claims about evolution and never see fit to answer when asked questions?

Bren
02-29-2012, 10:15
There is somewhat more room to doubt Genesis. Do you really believe snakes used to walk around and talk to people?

Isaac Asimov once wrote an interesting essay comparing the 2 versions of Genesis (you all realize the Genesis story is repeated twice, with differences, right?). He points out the difference between the 1st (newer) and the 2nd (older) versions and how they are influenced with the ideas people had about gods and creation about 5,000 years apart and with regard to the gods of other religions. It shows the development of the idea of omnipotence, from the older gods who had limitations. Even what Eve was made from chages from Chapter 1 to Chapter 2. I have no idea where to find it or what it was titled, but read Genesis Chapters 1 and 2 and you'll get a lot of the idea - it's pretty obvious.

Bren
02-29-2012, 10:23
No one saw the first critters evolve from inorganic matter yet evolution is called a fact that cannot be questioned?

I think there is plenty of room to doubt evolution.

I suppose that most of you do not know that according to evolution theory that all of the Phyla appeared in the same period. There was no evolutionary tree with one form evolving into another. According to the model it was more like a lawn than a tree.

So why do you suppose that a tree is presented to neophytes to make eevolution seem more believable?

No scientist calls "evolution ... a fact that cannot be questioned." Continuous questioning is "sacred" to science. Evolution is always being questioned and details altered according to new evidence or interpretations. However, it is a theory, like gravity, that has no competing theory because no one has discovered any evidence on which to base a competing theory. It's the best we have and there is nothing else, so, as a practical mattter for laymen like us, it's a "fact."

However, the point of science is to try to use evidence of things that have happened to determine what really did happen. It doesn't matter if it's evolution, or how somebody was killed at a crime scene, we take the evidence and figure out what happened.

The irony of your comment is, if not seeing the event calls evolution into question, then it calls your religion into question even more (since we can all see evidence of evolution in our own time).

Japle
02-29-2012, 12:14
Bren, I think the book you're talking about is, "Asimov's Guide to the Bible". I have the "two volumes in one" edition. It's a very good book. Usually available on eBay for a reasonable price.

EDIT: This is a nearly 1300 page book that's not to be read by anyone who's into blind faith. There's too much detailed, factual information in there. Faith can't survive an environment like that!

Kentak
03-01-2012, 22:45
I look forward to seeing all my athiests friends at the upcoming Vast Evolutionary Conspiracy Annual Convention in Vegas next month!

:wavey:

(Oops, was I not supposed to mention that?)

Turn in your membership card!

Tilley
03-02-2012, 10:19
...yet you keep make these absurdly wrong claims about evolution and never see fit to answer when asked questions?
Shame on you Vic, you know how our dear friend Animal Mother hates competition...:whistling:

Vic Hays
03-02-2012, 10:46
No scientist calls "evolution ... a fact that cannot be questioned." Continuous questioning is "sacred" to science. Evolution is always being questioned and details altered according to new evidence or interpretations. However, it is a theory, like gravity, that has no competing theory because no one has discovered any evidence on which to base a competing theory. It's the best we have and there is nothing else, so, as a practical mattter for laymen like us, it's a "fact."


The irony of your comment is, if not seeing the event calls evolution into question, then it calls your religion into question even more (since we can all see evidence of evolution in our own time).

So in one breath you are saying that there are no competing theories and questioning the fact of evolution is like questioning gravity? What about Creation? Obviously you by faith believe evolution to be true.

BTW please cite examples of evolution occurring in our time.

Please realize that such evolution must arise out of new mutations that do not destroy information already present in the Genome and are not represented by genetic information already present as genetic information being expressed from within the genome.

lomfs24
03-02-2012, 13:12
So in one breath you are saying that there are no competing theories and questioning the fact of evolution is like questioning gravity? What about Creation? Obviously you by faith believe evolution to be true.

The problem with this idea is that it is not testable. When asked for proof if creation the only answer is "God did it. I have a 5000 year old book full of errors and inaccuracies that says he did it. End of story."

Close down the labs we got it figured out!

Gunhaver
03-02-2012, 13:23
So in one breath you are saying that there are no competing theories and questioning the fact of evolution is like questioning gravity? What about Creation? Obviously you by faith believe evolution to be true.

BTW please cite examples of evolution occurring in our time.

Please realize that such evolution must arise out of new mutations that do not destroy information already present in the Genome and are not represented by genetic information already present as genetic information being expressed from within the genome.

Have you ever witnessed any life form produce offspring that are not 100% accurate genetic copies of the parents? That's evolution. Now it's up to you to demonstrate what mechanism prevents that new information from compiling into very different life forms over long periods of time. This should be interesting (but I wouldn't count on it).

Gunhaver
03-02-2012, 13:24
Close down the labs we got it figured out!

:rofl:

Geko45
03-02-2012, 13:32
SObviously you by faith believe evolution to be true.

This is disingenuous. You know full well that there is plenty of recovered evidence in support of evolution. You can make arguments about its validity or the conclusions drawn from it, but the evidence exists. Evolution is not based on pure belief in the same manner as creation.

Plus, you are forgetting (yet again) that athiesm is not tied to evolution. If solid evidence emerged tomorrow disproving evolution (let's say we discovered aliens seeded the planet for instance) then evolution would be dropped without further consideration. It's just a theory that, so far, fits the observed evidence better than any other.

vikingsoftpaw
03-02-2012, 14:07
Evolution is not in conflict with Catholicism. Evolution is in colflict with Protestant Fundamentalist interpretation of scripture. Catholics call this Protestant Error.

Vic Hays
03-02-2012, 21:47
This is disingenuous. You know full well that there is plenty of recovered evidence in support of evolution. You can make arguments about its validity or the conclusions drawn from it, but the evidence exists. Evolution is not based on pure belief in the same manner as creation.



I don't see a better case for evolution than creation. Something made the universe. That is evidence.

lomfs24
03-02-2012, 22:03
I don't see a better case for evolution than creation. Something made the universe. That is evidence.

Quick note. Evolution does not address the universe. Evolution doesn't even address the beginning of life. So, OK, let's put evolution on the back burner for a while.

The universe exists. You you want to make the connection between the existence of the universe with God creating it. OK. Tell me how you would go about making that connection? How could we go about making that connection without wild speculation?

Let me give you an example of wild speculation as it might relate to this topic. True story, I came home from work the other night, and before I opened the front door I noticed white powder on the front porch. I thought that was a little weird. Obviously, it came from somewhere. I open the door and I am greeted with white powder all over the inside of the house, in the carpet, on the floor, counter tops, EVERYWHERE! What was the first thing I yelled? "BOYS, GET YOUR BUTTS UP HERE, NOW!" And I began to grill my boys about what the powder was and how it got there. Turns out that they did, in fact, get into the powdered sugar, had a little spat and powdered sugar ended up everywhere.

Now, it was a wild speculation on my part that my boys did it. They could have just as easily had one of their friends stop by after school who had gotten a hold of some sugar or flour from their own house and wanted to play a prank.

So, relating that to creation. Yes, the universe exists. But how do we connect God with that without using the wild speculation that just because it exists he must have done it. And just as importantly, how do we connect your God with this creation rather than some other God, again, without wild speculation? And just for clarification, your theory should not be built around Gen 1:1, or any of the following 66 books for that matter. Something demonstrable, and repeatable.

Gunhaver
03-02-2012, 22:29
Yes, the universe exists. But how do we connect God with that without using the wild speculation that just because it exists he must have done it. And just as importantly, how do we connect your God with this creation rather than some other God, again, without wild speculation? And just for clarification, your theory should not be built around Gen 1:1, or any of the following 66 books for that matter. Something demonstrable, and repeatable.

And to this I would like to ad, Vic, how is it that the requirement that something which exists must have a creator conveniently goes away once you assume your creator? Why isn't the creator subject to the same requirement? As the OP, I also respectfully request that you go back through this thread and either address all the points and rebuttals that you are conveniently ignoring or admit that you have no answer because you're starting to look foolish.

Animal Mother
03-02-2012, 23:40
I don't see a better case for evolution than creation. That's because you refuse to look.
Something made the universe. That is evidence. The universe exists. That is the only definite claim you can make in this regard. All that is evidence for is the existence of the universe. How the universe came into existence is a completely separate question and one that we have answered quite well back to 13.7 Billion years ago without a need to resort to the supernatural.

Animal Mother
03-02-2012, 23:41
Shame on you Vic, you know how our dear friend Animal Mother hates competition...:whistling: Are there questions about evolution you believe I've neglected to address? If so, please do link to the posts.

Animal Mother
03-02-2012, 23:44
So in one breath you are saying that there are no competing theories and questioning the fact of evolution is like questioning gravity? What about Creation? Obviously you by faith believe evolution to be true. Creation isn't a theory, groups like ICR and AiG prove that every day.
BTW please cite examples of evolution occurring in our time. As gunhaver, and I, have pointed out, any instance of reproduction is an instance of evolution. If you mean instances of observable evolution, those have also been offered up time and time again. Would doing it again make any real difference in your position?
Please realize that such evolution must arise out of new mutations that do not destroy information already present in the Genome and are not represented by genetic information already present as genetic information being expressed from within the genome. Where exactly are these inviolable conditions set?

Tilley
03-03-2012, 00:28
If you mean instances of observable evolution, those have also been offered up time and time again. Would doing it again make any real difference in your position?

You're not the only one looking for answers.

How did life come from non-life? No theories or guesses...how did it happen?

How did life start from a single-celled amoeba to a 10-ton dinosaur? Where are all the intermediate stage fossil records?

If you believe in the laws of thermodynamics, how did the human brain, central nervous system, endocrine system, and the rest develop when we are in a constant state of entropy?

Animal Mother
03-03-2012, 00:35
You're not the only one looking for answers. Of course not, there are tens of thousands of scientists working on all kinds of questions, and the attendant answers.
How did life come from non-life? No theories or guesses...how did it happen? Abiogenesis.
How did life start from a single-celled amoeba to a 10-ton dinosaur? Where are all the intermediate stage fossil records? Evolution.
If you believe in the laws of thermodynamics, how did the human brain, central nervous system, endocrine system, and the rest develop when we are in a constant state of entropy?We aren't in a constant state of entropy. Nor, for that matter are we a closed system, thus the laws of thermodynamics do not apply.

Tilley
03-03-2012, 00:52
Abiogenesis.
Evolution.
We aren't in a constant state of entropy. Nor, for that matter are we a closed system, thus the laws of thermodynamics do not apply.
I need concrete proof. A theory does me no good if there can be another theory that can equally be true.

And I do believe entropy effects us as well. Cancer, gray hairs and Alzheimer's are proof of this. But to go from a single celled goop to the human brain in one helluva giant leap for mankind. That requires an intricate and precise application of energy.

Animal Mother
03-03-2012, 01:03
I need concrete proof. A theory does me no good if there can be another theory that can equally be true. There aren't any equally true theories though. Evolution can be tested, it has been and in every instance the results have matched the theory.
And I do believe entropy effects us as well. Believe what you will, but the laws of thermodynamics apply only to the exchange of heat energy in a closed system.
Cancer, gray hairs and Alzheimer's are proof of this. Those are all proof that we're subject to disease, they say nothing about entropy in a thermodynamic sense.
But to go from a single celled goop to the human brain in one helluva giant leap for mankind. Mankind didn't make that leap. By the time there was a mankind (assuming that we're using that term as synonymous with H.Sapiens Sapiens) the brain was already very well developed.
That requires an intricate and precise application of energy.No, it doesn't, especially when there is an external source constantly adding new energy to the system. Go outside during the day, look up and you'll probably be able to locate just such a source.

Animal Mother
03-03-2012, 01:09
I apologize, I missed this question earlier.
Where are all the intermediate stage fossil records?Every fossil is an intermediate stage fossil, between that which came before it and that into which it later evolved.

Geko45
03-03-2012, 08:40
I need concrete proof. A theory does me no good if there can be another theory that can equally be true.

Science never claims to prove a theory "concretely". Thiests are the ones claiming to know beyond all doubt. And, there are no other "equally true" theories, only ones that less precisely fit the observed facts.

And I do believe entropy effects us as well. Cancer, gray hairs and Alzheimer's are proof of this. But to go from a single celled goop to the human brain in one helluva giant leap for mankind. That requires an intricate and precise application of energy.

You changed reference frames. Any non-closed system can get a boost from an external source to temporarily counter entropy. For the Earth, that external source is the Sun. For the human body those external sources are food, modern medicine, etc.

In the reference frame of the Earth and Sun, put the right "goop" in a bowl and expose it to UV radiation long enough and it is a statistical certainty that you will come up with some self-organizing and replicating organic compounds. From there, random mutation and natural selection (aka evolution) explains the rest.