Why Evolution Is Wrong

The problem, cottons, is that you keep trying to make us prove a negative when we aren't satisfied with your 'scientific evidence'. The burden of proof falls on whomever made the original claim. So far none of it has been succesful at changing my opinion.

 

No...you've pointed out some flaws in our arguments and sait YOUR sources are the stronger ones. In a discussion with people that already have made up their mind, this is the usual thing. E.g:

My second last post, where I explained that the magnetic field is bound to decrease, you talk about radiometric dating. I didn't mention that. Then I explain to you the technique and you find some unacceptable excuse to weaken my point. You don't belive in our arguments. And the feeling is mutual.

The 150 years you talked about were mentioned in the article, too )Ireread it) and they are mentioned as part of the natural decreasing proces that happens before a pole shift.

There's an argument. Wanna read it?

www.derspiegel.de

Issue 32, 2004


Now my guess is that you put YOUR source above mine. Simply because it suits your case better.

 

1. I went back to the original post to give you my views on the magnetic poles. And I seem to have shown that your post telling us nothing about evolution. In the article, the steady decay is part of a natural circle. There's decay or decrease, then collapse, then the change of poles. Exit "proof #2"

2. As for the radiometric dating...i'm not gonna argue because there's nothing to argue. Radiometric dating is inaccurate. But our inability to measure the age of our planet doesn't have anything to say in this discussion. We can't PROVE our earth is x million years old. But that doesn't mean it isn't.

 

Btw...there's no such thing like statistically impossible. It could be unlikely, but not impossible. If you want, you can prove anything with statistics. Also you can DISprove anything with the same means

 

i think the earth and universe are both very old....and that darwinian evolution is wrong.

kinda a pox on both your houses!

i can give details if anyone still cares about this thread.

 

Do you know why evolution is right? Because the theory of God is illogical. Where does he dwell? What does he do for fun? Nothing bro, there is no god, it makes no sense. Evolution shows us how we evolved from barely nothing to the humans we are today. It's all adaptations and differential reproduction. That's it, get over it. When you die, your body will go 6 feet under and your mind will cease to think. Both will rot away and become part of the earth, and the cycle will go on. People are selfish and they want to live eternally. What they don't realize is how slim the chances were for them to ever be in the first place.

 

Well I agree with the first part of your post, you were on the right track. Then you said you could prove/disprove anything with stats?? No, thats why stats stresses standard error. You can't get any statistic without using a means to determine error. Sorry to point out minor shit like this, but I figured it would clear it up.

 

evolution is right because the theory of god is illogical? one thing isn't right because another thing is wrong...unless you are saying there are only 2 choices and one of them has to be right.

that's it get over it? sounds like you view religion as a crutch for people. that you think some people are so terrified of dying that in their weakness they turn to religion. that's rather a narrow-minded viewpoint to take. somebody could take the same viewpoint about evolutionists. one could imagine that people come to evolution because they are so terrified that they might end up in a lake of fire after they die that they run to the soothing charms of evolution which would mean, as you said, that when you die your mind ceases to be....certainly anyone would choose oblivion over eternal punishment.

but i don't claim that about evolutionists and i'm sure you don't either.

i'm going to make another post showing 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.

 

In 1981 the British Museum (often called the Natural History Museum) opened a new exhibition on Darwinism. The first thing you saw on entering the exhibition hall was a notice in flickering lights:
Have you ever wondered why there are so many different kinds of living things?
One idea is that all the living things we see today have EVOLVED from a distant ancestor by a process of gradual change.
How could evolution have occurred? How could one species change into another?
The exhibition in this hall looks at one possible explanation - the explanation first thought of by Charles Darwin.

A little further into the exhibition a poster stated:
Another view is that God created all living things perfect and unchanging.

One of the world's leading scientific journals, Nature, promptly ran an editorial headed, 'Darwin's death in South Kensington'.
It quoted a phrase from the Museum's latest brochure, 'If the theory of evolution is true...' , as evidence of 'the rot at the museum'. The editorial went on:
The new exhibition policy, the museum's chief interaction with the outside world, is being developed in some degree of isolation from the museum's staff of distinguished biologists, most of whom would rather lose their right hands than begin a sentence with the phrase, 'If the theory of evolution is true...'

The editor was forced to publish the following letter, which was signed by no less than 22 of the museum's staff of distinguished biologists:

Sir - As working biologists at the British Museum (Natural History) we were astonished to read your editorial 'Darwin's death in South Kensington' (Nature 26 February, p. 735). How is it that a journal such as yours that is devoted to science and its practice can advocate that theory be presented as fact? This is the stuff of prejudice, not science, and as scientists our basic concern is to keep an open mind on the unknowable. Surely it should not be otherwise?
You suggest that most of us would rather lose our right hands than begin a sentence with the phrase 'If the theory of evolution is true...' Are we to take it that evolution is a fact, proven to the limits of scientific rigour? If that is the inference then we must disagree most strongly. We have no absolute proof of the theory of evolution. What we do have is overwhelming circumstantial evidence in favour of it and as yet no better alternative. But the theory of evolution would be abandoned tomorrow if a better theory appeared...

i've got more to post but i'm going to break it up into smaller posts hoping that will make it easier to read.

 

"We must next explain how a prebiotic soup of organic molecules...evolved into a self-replicating organism. While some suggestive evidence has been obtained, I must admit that attempts to reconstruct this evolutionary process are extremely tentative.
The origin of the genetic code is the most baffling aspect of the problem of the origins of life and a major conceptual or experimental breakthrough may be needed before we can make any substantial progress."

from 'Darwinism at the very beginning of life' 'Even before there was life there was natural selection'
by Dr. Leslie Orgel

 

"All evolutionary reconstructions...rest heavily on plausibility rather than evidence to command assent."

from Jonathan Howard's book, Darwin.

 

"It is important to bear in mind, however, that we are usually so ignorant of the genetic structure of fossil populations and of the relations between environment, fitness and morphology that we cannot provide explanations for any particular historical pattern of evolution."

Dr. Brian Charlesworth, 'Neo-Darwinism - the plain truth'

 

"The concept of organic evolution is very highly prized by biologists, for many of whom it is an object of genuinely religious devotion, because they regard it as a supreme integrative principle."

E. G. Conklin, Man, Real and Ideal p. 147

 

"Belief in evolution is...exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true, but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."

Professor L. H. Matthews from his foreword to a new edition of Darwin's Origin of Species 1971

 

"Neo-Darwinism has already showed signs of hardening into quasi-religious dogma...some of the critics of Kimura and Ohta (two Japanese biologists who dared to criticize Darwin) react like priests scenting blasphemy."

Nigel Calder Nature, 255 (1975) p. 8

 

Darwin's admission 'that he was in a hopeless muddle: he could not believe that each detail of organic structure had been preordained; nor could he think that the evolutionary process as a whole was the result of chance.'

John Hedley Brooke New Scientist, 9 August 1979, p. 456, quoting from Darwin's Life and Letters

 

Palaeontologists (fossil experts) have been among the most prominent doubters. David M. Raup spoke for many of them in a paper with the significant title,'Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology'. He reckoned that only about a quarter of a million species of fossil plants and animals have yet been discovered. Yet evolutionists believe that at least a hundred times as many fossil species are still awaiting discovery. Hence, Raup warned, Darwinism appears to be based upon less than one per cent of the potential fossil evidence.

Bulletin of the Field Museum of Natural History, 50, January 1979