Why Evolution Is Wrong

[thccrystals]

What are his credentials? Just a canadian professor or what?

[austus]

Originally Posted by thccrystals

What are his credentials? Just a canadian professor or what?

Dr. Martin was a Professor of Anatomy at McGill University and he graduated in medicine at the Trinity College in Dublin.

[MrKottonMouth]

All I have to say it, scientists are some of the smartest people around. They wouldn't tell us those theories if they weren't true or atleast somewhat accurate. Scientists aren't always right or 100% correct but they are damn good. Another thing, there is proof in evolution. As for religion and our birth from god.... well there is no proof. Just beliefs. It seems highly illogical some magical being can have power to create such a complex society. Even as simple as the beginning of time. After all, if god is real, how was he created if he is the one to create everything. He had to be created somehow. That bullshit that he is "all powerful" and "was never born, just was" is a load of horse shit from the bible's biblical lies. If you want the truth, read up on evolution and the creation of existence on earth. If you want sugar-coated lies and want to still believe in God and believe he is "the master of everything" then go suffocate yourself in psalms (and don't forget to shove your dirty crucifix sideways up your ass). By the way, yes I am a firm disbeliever in religion and God. Jesus obviously was real but he was just a lunatic. Joan of Arc was a prophet and you know how she derived her beliefs and words from "God"? Well, she ate magical mushrooms. Yes that is the truth. Accept and bow your head in shame.

[u4ia]

Alright if evolution is wrong then why don't you offer up an alternate theory that is as compelling and then maybe I'll see things your way.

I have yet to see another theory that jives as well and is as logical as the theory of evolution.

[austus]

Originally Posted by MrKottonMouth

All I have to say it, scientists are some of the smartest people around. They wouldn't tell us those theories if they weren't true or atleast somewhat accurate. Scientists aren't always right or 100% correct but they are damn good.

Well MrKottonMouth, I agree, which is why i've been quoting top notch scientists in their fields from around the world-- top-notch agnostic or atheistic scientists i might add who because they are such hard-core scientists can't stand the bullcrap that most evolutionists and darwinists are spreading.

Originally Posted by MrKottonMouth

Another thing, there is proof in evolution. As for religion and our birth from god.... well there is no proof. Just beliefs.

Obviously you haven't been reading my posts very well, because all these top-notch, worldwide, hardcore, agnostic and atheistic scientists i've been quoting totally DISAGREE with you.

Originally Posted by MrKottonMouth

It seems highly illogical some magical being can have power to create such a complex society. Even as simple as the beginning of time. After all, if god is real, how was he created if he is the one to create everything. He had to be created somehow. That bullshit that he is "all powerful" and "was never born, just was" is a load of horse shit from the bible's biblical lies.

I'm afraid your problem with god and the bible and any kind of religion doesn't have anything to do with this discussion of why evolution is wrong and except for showing the bias you are coming from is totally irrelevant. Unless you are saying that it has to be either evolution or god? [/quote]

Originally Posted by MrKottonMouth

If you want the truth, read up on evolution and the creation of existence on earth. If you want sugar-coated lies and want to still believe in God and believe he is "the master of everything" then go suffocate yourself in psalms (and don't forget to shove your dirty crucifix sideways up your ass). By the way, yes I am a firm disbeliever in religion and God. Jesus obviously was real but he was just a lunatic. Joan of Arc was a prophet and you know how she derived her beliefs and words from "God"? Well, she ate magical mushrooms. Yes that is the truth. Accept and bow your head in shame.

And here we come to the heart of the matter with you--and I am SO glad you posted because you have shown far better than I have a point I made in one of my first few posts---why evolution is simply a belief no different than one in god and that you can have as many different types of evolutionist-viewpoints as there are religious ones, and why i've been including quotes from scientists directly referring to darwinists belief in evolution as a substitute for a creator and the scientists acting as priests.

You said it yourself---your just following along with the crowd because you BELIEVE in science and scientists--with a realization that they are people too but with seemingly no understanding that they can force-feed you an agenda the same as anyone else. if this was the middle-ages MrKottonmouth, i have no doubt that you would be a catholic speaking the same way about the priests as you now are about the scientists, and i'm sure defending the priests as they go about the inquisition.

[austus]

Originally Posted by u4ia

Alright if evolution is wrong then why don't you offer up an alternate theory that is as compelling and then maybe I'll see things your way.

I have yet to see another theory that jives as well and is as logical as the theory of evolution.

I don't think you've been understanding my posts because the agnostic/atheistic scientists i've been quoting don't agree with your assesment that the theory of evolution is logical.

and if you can't do away with the theory of evolution becase you need an "alternate theory that is as compelling"....well it's sad because that means no matter what anyone says about it and it's problems and flaws, it means you're gonna cling to it unless you are offered something else.

[austus]

J. C. Willis was a british botanist with many distinctions conferred on him such as Fellowship of the Royal Society and an honorary doctorate from Harvard University. The scientific establishment on both sides of the Atlantic felt obliged to honor him, and because of his high standing the Cambridge University Press published his book, "The Course of Evolution".

And he points that natural selection cannot possibly affect plants as powerfully as it affects animals. One plant species generally differs from its cousins in quite small details, such as the shape of the leaves, or the layout of the veins in the leaf. It seems most unlikely that such features can have the slightest effect on the plant's ability to survive; how, then, can natural selection have produced them?

Climate is regarded by Darwinists as a major factor in natural selection. In a certain place the climate gets wetter, with the consequence that new species of plants and animals evolve that can stand wetter conditions. But what happens when, halfway through this period, an altogether exceptional spell of weather causes a prolonged drought? The half-evolved water-loving animals might be able to survive by migrating temporarily to the nearest lake. But not the half-evolved moisture-adapted plants - they are rooted to the spot and will die there.

Willis shows example after example that 'the survival of the fittest' rarely applies in the plant world. With plants the more usual rule is 'survival of the luckiest'.

He points that the effect of favorable mutations would soon be lost, through crossing with the parent species, where in the plant kingdom crossing cannot be avoided.

He discusses many features of plants where no intermediate steps between two arrangements are possible. To give just one simple example, leaves are arranged on plant stems in two main ways. They may alternate as you go along the stem: left, right, left, right, and so on. Or they may be opposite each other in pairs. You cannot have a 'half opposite, half alternate' arrangement.

How, then, did one arrangement evolve into the other, when there cannot be any intermediate steps? And what possible survival value can one arrangement have over the other?

He asks why is it that so many arrangements in plants and their flowers are mathematically perfect? In the case of opposite leaves, for instance, they are always exactly opposite. Why is this? If natural selection were responsible for the arrangement, would it not have been content with 'more or less opposite', which would surely have served the purpose of survival just as well as 'precisely opposite'?

He cites the cases of climbing plants and parasitic plants. Because these are more specialized it is generally agreed that they must have evolved from more ordinary relatives. But how?

Climbers differ in two ways from their upright relatives: they have weak, flexible stems, and have tendrils, or some other climbing device. Which evolved first? If the weak stems came first, how did the floppy-stemmed plants escape being smothered by other vegetation while their tendrils were evolving? And if the climbing organs evolved first, what made such organs evolve when they were not yet needed?

Instead of roots, parasitic plants have suckers that can penetrate the outer skin of other plants, or even the bark of trees. How could a plant with roots evolve by gradual stages into a parasite? Willis claims that the only way a parasite or a climbing plant could have evolved is in a single, huge leap. The Darwinian idea of evolution by many little steps has never been properly thought through, he says.

So he proceeds to list the evidence that evolution really has occurred in huge leaps. Much of it is mathematical evidence, being based on the statistics of plant distribution, on which he was a world authority. It all adds up to an extremely strong case, which has never been refuted, and which has been accepted by quite a number of botanists.

If his case really is unanswerable, why has it not been accepted more widely? Largely because of his breathtaking conclusion. The mutations that we see occurring today are all very small, producing creatures that differ only slightly from their parents. But the mass of evidence found by Willis pointed to occasional gigantic mutations, or 'differentiations' as he called them.

These must have created, in one generation, not just new species, but also new genera (groups of species), and even new families (groups of genera). Thus the seed of a grass might bring forth a sugar cane or a bamboo; or translating Willis' ideas to the animal kingdom, a chimpanzee might have a litter of human beings - or vice versa.

He offered no suggestion as to how such huge, creative steps could occur. While he expressly ruled out the idea of any divine activity, all he could offer in place of it was this:


"It is an inspiring thought that so great and complex a process as evolution has not been a mere matter of chance, but has behind it what one may look upon as a great thought or principle that has resulted in its moving as an ordered whole, and working itself out upon a definite plan...there is a general law, probably electrical, at the back of it."

So here we have a world class botanist, a hardcore scientist and atheist for the plant kingdom coming to the same conclusion as someone i'm sure you are all familiar with and who i quoted before, Harvard Professor Stephen Jay Gould, that massive changes had to occur in very short intervals of time. And which for evolution can offer NO explanation.


The Course of Evolution, Cambridge, 1940
Creation and Evolution, Dr. Alan Hayward, 1995

[austus]

In 1961 the Botanical Society of Edinburgh sponsored a survey of botanical knowledge, complete in one volume. The whole field was divided into 8 sections, and 8 eminent botanists were asked to write papers on the areas where they were expert.

The paper entitled 'Evolution' was written by Professor E. J. H. Corner, FRS, of Cambridge. It is a remarkable paper in many ways, not least because Corner speaks much more favorably of Willis than of Darwin! This distinguished anti-Darwinian has sometimes been portrayed as a creationist, because he said:

"I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." (p. 97)

This, however, is unfair, because the rest of the page gives a rather different picture of Corner's views. What he is really saying is that some of the available evidence seems to support evolution, whilst some - the evidence from fossils - appears to support special creation. And later in the paper Corner makes it clear that he does indeed believe in evolution.

But not in Darwinian evolution. He rejects Darwinism as a 'temple' where believers 'worship'. And most of them, he charges, 'would break down before an inquisition'. He summarizes his views on Darwinist writings in one terse sentence:

"Textbooks hoodwink." (p. 97)

In his 'Conclusions' he states:

"This evolution can be likened to a piece of clockwork which, once wound up, proceeds in a set manner...It will take much research, I fancy, to discover how this clock was wound up." (p. 113)

Here we have another distinguished biologist, an atheist, willing to admit that darwinists are no different from creationists and that (you paying attention MrKottonMouth) the educational system is baldface lying in the way it presents Darwinism, yet the lay people (like you MrKottonMouth, at least i'm assuming so) swear by the 'darwinian worshipping" scientists.

And for you U4ia, here is a scientist that believes in evolution - but has no idea how it could possibly have happened.


A. M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley, Contemporary Botanical Thought, Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh & London, 1961
Creation and Evolution, Dr Alan Hayward, 1995

[IGotTheCottons]

Originally Posted by clonemeister

Well, Henry Morris has a Ph.D in Civil Engineering and Hydraulics. How does that qualify him to discredit a science he knows nothing about? You said you had scientific proof that refutes radiometric dating techniques, well, Mr. Morris's opinions about a field of science he knows nothing about, aren't it. He uses misleading arguments and out of context information.........sound familiar? Here's an example.

BTW I feel the validity or lack thereof, of your sources to be quite relavent. Especially when you consider the fact that they all so far have turned out to not have any formal education in the fields they are attempting to refute.

Ok, I'll do more research. I can't promise it will come quickly, but I will do this research. And by the way... I would also like to point out that you (by your own admission) have no formal education in the fields you are attempting to defend... So how is Morris any different than you? He may not have a PhD in science, but he is educated, and he uses quotes from several respectible sources (these are mainly secular scientific sources). And you gave 1 good argument about the lava-flows... what about the other ones? And also, what about the second law of thermodynamics? No one has yet been able to explain why it is that evolution is still accepted when it goes against something that is proven, scientific law. Usually when scientists come up with a theory, and it contradicts something that is a proven fact, they throw the theory out as being no good. Why then is evolution still accepted?

Also, the fossil record, the biggest evidence evolution has, is better explained by a global flood than billions of years of evolution.

As for it being impossible for DNA to evolve, well.................I have this to say about that.......................
"DNA could have evolved gradually from a simpler replicator; RNA is a likely candidate, since it can catalyze its own duplication "[Jeffares et al. 1998; Poole et al. 1998; Leipe et al. 1999].
"The RNA itself could have had simpler precursors, such as peptide nucleic acids" [Böhler et al. 1995].

Please note that the sources I quote here are much more recent than Morris and his book from 1974, and they are from sources who are educated in the field they are making statements about. I have more to say, but it's late, and there is some bubble hash calling my name. Enjoy...............

Tell me then, how does non-living soup go from non-living, to living? Also, explain to me why this has never been replicated by people? There has never been a case of someone making something that was living out of something that wasn't, even under extreemly controlled labratory conditions, it has proved impossible... Even if someone does in the future create life, that only proves one thing... It takes intelligence to create life.

[thccrystals]

Just admit that it is POSSIBLE that your religion is incorrect and that some form of evolution or some other religion could be correct. Then at this point renounce your full-fleged faith and adopt an agnostic approach. Thanks.

[Grim Bongmaster]

"In thermodynamics probablities are not fixed entities, failure to understand this has led to the wide-spread and totally false belief that the second law of thermodynamics does not permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder. There are many examples in nature where order does arise spontaneously from disorder. "Snowflakes with their six-sided crystalline symmetry are formed spontaneously from randomly moving water vapor molecules. Salts with precise planes of crystalline symmetry form spontaneously when water evaporates from a solution. Seeds sprout into flowering plants and eggs develop into chicks."

"The creationist position would necessarily discard the entire mathematical framework of thermodynamics and would provide no basis for the engineering design of turbines, refrigeration units, industrial pumps, etc. It would do away with the well-developed mathematical relationships of physical chemistry, including the effect of temperature and pressure on equilibrium constants and phase changes."

The fact is, the second law of thermodynamics only is proven to work in a closed system. No-one can possibly know how or why our universe works, where it came from or how life got here. Just because you have a fucking book that says some omnipotent being made us, doesn't make it so. I can write a book that says we evolved from dust mites and after 2000 years, no matter how many people follow my new doctrine it makes it no more right than when it was written.
"Energy spontaneously tends to flow only from being concentrated in one place to becoming diffused and spread out."

"tends to" so even in this law, to which you now obviously hold as infallible as your omnipotent being, has a clause for rare or unexplainable phenomenon. (I suppose you would call them miracles)

I realize you've probably had some divine experience or talked with god, and this proved it to you, just keep that to yourself, because I really don't give a shit. Thats no better than the evolution fairy coming into my bedroom tonight and telling me that evolution really DID happen.

So in conclusion, stop trying to force your beliefs on everyone, your no better than any evolutionist who would come in here and say the exact opposite, the fact is, you don't know shit!! Don't take this as an insult, because neither do I, the difference being, I am comfortable in my ignorance and I refuse to attribute life as a gift of some omnipotent being or the chance of evolution.

oh, and by the way tell your brethren to stop trying to enforce morality, they're really starting to piss me off!

[IGotTheCottons]

Originally Posted by Grim Bongmaster

"In thermodynamics probablities are not fixed entities, failure to understand this has led to the wide-spread and totally false belief that the second law of thermodynamics does not permit order to spontaneously arise from disorder. There are many examples in nature where order does arise spontaneously from disorder. "Snowflakes with their six-sided crystalline symmetry are formed spontaneously from randomly moving water vapor molecules. Salts with precise planes of crystalline symmetry form spontaneously when water evaporates from a solution. Seeds sprout into flowering plants and eggs develop into chicks."

Yeah, but from the second the chick is born, or the seed sprouts, it's dying (ie, the law of thermodynamics is taking place). Whenever something is formed, from that second on it is breaking down, and entropy is building. and how does salt forming go against thermodynamics? Salt is a crystle, like many other substances... It's chemicle makeup determines it's "precise planes of crystalline symmetry"... how does that, in the least bit, show something going against the second law of thermodynamics? And snowflakes aren't order... it's not forward progression. It's what happens when you freeze water vapor... again, how does this go against the second law of thermodynamics...

"The creationist position would necessarily discard the entire mathematical framework of thermodynamics and would provide no basis for the engineering design of turbines, refrigeration units, industrial pumps, etc. It would do away with the well-developed mathematical relationships of physical chemistry, including the effect of temperature and pressure on equilibrium constants and phase changes."

Say what? turbines, refrigeration units, and industrial pumps? What does that have to do with the forward progression that would be needed in order for a lesser organized living organism to evolve into a more complex living organism? I'd like you to explain what you mean by that, seeing as how it really doesn't make any sense.

The fact is, the second law of thermodynamics only is proven to work in a closed system.

Which, by definition, the universe is.

[quote]No-one can possibly know how or why our universe works, where it came from or how life got here. Just because you have a fucking book that says some omnipotent being made us, doesn't make it so. I can write a book that says we evolved from dust mites and after 2000 years, no matter how many people follow my new doctrine it makes it no more right than when it was written.

And just because you read some "science" book which teaches evolution (not really a science, but rather it's own religion), and you believe in something that has no solid scientific evidence, doesn't mean you have to be a prick to those of us who believe in something else.

"Energy spontaneously tends to flow only from being concentrated in one place to becoming diffused and spread out."

"tends to" so even in this law, to which you now obviously hold as infallible as your omnipotent being, has a clause for rare or unexplainable phenomenon. (I suppose you would call them miracles)

Give me an example of energy not progressing into entropy? The energy is always there, but it becomes useless over time. If you think you can prove otherwise, please, do so. And make sure you actually back it up... don't just quote something, and not put the source or anything, like you've so conviently done in this post.

I realize you've probably had some divine experience or talked with god, and this proved it to you, just keep that to yourself, because I really don't give a shit. Thats no better than the evolution fairy coming into my bedroom tonight and telling me that evolution really DID happen.

So in conclusion, stop trying to force your beliefs on everyone, your no better than any evolutionist who would come in here and say the exact opposite, the fact is, you don't know shit!! Don't take this as an insult, because neither do I, the difference being, I am comfortable in my ignorance and I refuse to attribute life as a gift of some omnipotent being or the chance of evolution.

oh, and by the way tell your brethren to stop trying to enforce morality, they're really starting to piss me off!

Honestly, I don't appreciate your disrespect. If you don't want to read my threads, then don't. No one forces you to be here. If you don't like what I have to say, DON'T READ IT. I'm not here trying to force my beliefs on anyone. This is the Spirituality and Philosophy section of the forum... what kind of threads do you expect to find here? Just because you don't agree with me doesn't give you the right to come in here and accuse me of forcing my beliefs on everyone.

And just fyi, I don't think I'm better than anyone. The main purpose of this thread was to debate evolution. The evolutionists have their thread "Why the Bible is Wrong" so to be a bit ironic, I started a Why Evolution is Wrong thread. I bet you were all go-ho for the Why the Bible is Wrong thread, and you really couldn't care less about what they said in there... but as soon as I say something that challanges what you believe, you get all defensive, and insulting. Hmm... sounds a little hypocritical to me.

Anyway... I said all that to simply say this. I don't care if you don't like what I have to say. I'm going to say it. There's nothing wrong with what I'm doing, and if you don't want to read it, then don't! Also, if you don't have anything to contribute to the debate, don't post here.

[Natural Mystic]

Originally Posted by IGotTheCottons

And someone please try to explain to me how life is the offset to entropy when we're all dying from the time we're born? The fact of the matter is that over time things break down and decay.

Well I'm not an expert on this entropy stuff, but we're not all dying from the time were born. Don't we grow for the first 20 years of our lives physically? And don't we learn throughout our whole lives.. and isn't learning a form of growing?

Anyways, this is one crazy ass topic! But noone can prove or dispove anything or better yet, noone can disprove a THEORY. The word theory means that it hasn't been proven yet! LoL. This thread is funny.

And Cottons.. if God made everything just like that.. why are you trying to back up his "creation" by using scientific facts.. doesn't that just contradict itself or is it just me?

[IGotTheCottons]

Originally Posted by Natural Mystic

Well I'm not an expert on this entropy stuff, but we're not all dying from the time were born. Don't we grow for the first 20 years of our lives physically? And don't we learn throughout our whole lives.. and isn't learning a form of growing?

Anyways, this is one crazy ass topic! But noone can prove or dispove anything or better yet, noone can disprove a THEORY. The word theory means that it hasn't been proven yet! LoL. This thread is funny.

And Cottons.. if God made everything just like that.. why are you trying to back up his "creation" by using scientific facts.. doesn't that just contradict itself or is it just me?

Entropy is basically the amount of unusable energy... You see when something is first created it has energy, this energy can never be destroyed, but rather, what happens is that it becomes unusable... Or chaotic and disorganized. When something is born, it may grow, but it's still dying. From the second you're born, the clock begins ticking. Every second that passes by, you are 1 second closer to death. You body is breaking down slowly. It may be getting bigger, but it's still breaking down.

And if God made everything, that would also mean he created the .aws of science, physics, nature, etc. True science does not contradict the Bible. The only part of "science" that goes contrary to special creation would be Evolution (not really science, but rather a religion in of itself).

[TheTick]

Bahahahahahaha.... I think this all just goes to prove my point that stoners/high people should NOT DEBATE SCIENCE. hahahahahaha... you guys crack me up

~The Tick
"Well, once again my friend, we find that science is a two-headed beast.
One head is nice, it gives us aspirin and other modern conveniences. . .
but the other head of science is bad! Oh beware the other head of
science, Arthur, it bites! And it can really ruin a good day off." ~ The Tick vs. Dinsosaur Neil