It constantly amazes me how many people blindly accept the "theory of evolution" without even thinking about it.I don't know how anyone can look at the eye or the brain and say they were just an accident.
If evolution was true, we should have millions of transitional fossils.
But the reality is this:
"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?"
-Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, in letter to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979. Cited in: Sunderland, Luther D., Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems (El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1988), p. 89.
If evolution was true, then we should see an "evolutionary tree" in the fossil record, with complex life developing very slowly from earlier less complex forms. Instead, we see the sudden, instant appearance of fully formed complex life (some evolutionists refer to this sudden appearance of complex life as the Cambrian explosion).
Also, evolutionists are at a complete loss in how to explain the creation of new information that is required for one animal to turn into another animal.
As another article explains:
"The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content, from over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of even the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism to three billion ‘letters’ (stored in each human cell nucleus)."
The evolutionists cannot show us a single example of functional new information being added to any creature.
I have a question for evolutionists:
You have enough blind faith to believe that life just popped into existence from nonlife, and that such life just happened to have the ability to take in the nourishment it needed, to expel waste, and to reproduce itself, all the while having everything it needed to survive in the environment in which it suddenly found itself?
And I have a standing challenge for any evolutionists, skeptics or atheists to go debunk these videos:
http://www.leestrobel.com/Creator.htm
If you can debunk them then you are better than any evolutionist I have ever met.
Doesn't it also constantly surprise you how many people blindly accept religion
ReplyDeleteLet's just accept the fact that no one knows anything and everyone will just blindly follow whatever it is they believe in.
This is what we call "tolerance."
You should check it out, it's totally wild.
You have difficulty believing that life sprang from no life, yet you have no problems believing that an omnipotent, omniscient being exists who created the universe and can read your mind? According to your theory, it's implausible that the universe sprang from nothingness yet we can't question where your god came from?
ReplyDeleteLol, I've got a challenge for you, did you learn in your biology class where babies come from and how some of them are born with defects?
ReplyDeleteApply that same knowledge to how "animals can change into other animals" and you just answered your own question right there. Or did you even take biology in school? ;)
Oh and no one has been able to prove that God, heaven, and hell exist either, and I don't believe that a book alone is evidence of that since it was written by man as well and not by God himself. If scientists have the imagination to make up evolution, then so did the guys that put the bible together. :D
"I don't know how anyone can look at the eye or the brain and say they were just an accident."
ReplyDeleteEvolution does not mean the eye or brain were accidental, simply that it is the best design that won out.
"If evolution was true, then we should see an "evolutionary tree" in the fossil record, with complex life developing very slowly from earlier less complex forms."
Ok, the bones are tens of millions of years old, not a 100, not a 1000, 10,000,000. So finding one is something special. Thinking you will find a complete bone structure for everything that lived is just crazy. If you want to see where all those dead animals went check your gas tank.
"Instead, we see the sudden, instant appearance of fully formed complex life (some evolutionists refer to this sudden appearance of complex life as the Cambrian explosion)"
SUDDEN? ? Please check your time lines, sudden in this case means millions of years. This "sudden appearance" took longer then humans have even been on this earth.
"Also, evolutionists are at a complete loss in how to explain the creation of new information that is required for one animal to turn into another animal."
Look at corn, and do some research, corn is nothing like it was a few hundred years ago when humans found it. It was more like weat then what we know of as corn. A mutant plant was found and it turned out to be the father of corn today.
"The evolutionists cannot show us a single example of functional new information being added to any creature."
This is because we have only been tracking DNA in animals for just a few years. But that same DNA shows how animals today are related.
"You have enough blind faith to believe that life just popped into existence from nonlife, and that such life just happened to have the ability to take in the nourishment it needed, to expel waste, and to reproduce itself, all the while having everything it needed to survive in the environment in which it suddenly found itself?"
No, but when someone makes a single celled organism that can reproduce from nothing more then chemistry I sure will. And I believe that is coming soon.
As far as the videos go, I am sorry don't the time or ability to watch at the moment.
My question to you is if evolution is so wrong, why did the christans steal the idea for it with Creationism, which is clearly a copy and paste with a little editing.
Also, why do people think that Evolution is the Anti-God. It never says anything about a god, good or bad. So stop being defensive. Few hundred years ago good men died to prove earth is not the center of the Universe(killed by religions "do gooders"), and that did not disprove god.
There is no god, no heaven, and no hell. We are animals.
ReplyDeleteWhat constantly amazes *me* is how people on both sides of this ridiculous 'debate' consistently miss the point and end up bickering over silly details.
ReplyDeleteWhat it actually comes down to is this: true, pure, rational science makes no attempt to prove or disprove the existence of any divine being, because it can't - it's not meant for that kind of thing. That's why theology and the sciences are considered to be separate fields of study; they don't overlap. But still this debate persists... it truly ought not to be raised at all, it's dumb.
We can see a good example of what I'm talking about by looking at an analogy to this whole evolution/creationism thing: let's consider for a moment the origins of a single man, instead of all mankind.
So a single man stands before us. A religious person might suggest that God created all people, and continues to create them now, and thus created this guy here. A biologist might suggest that people are created through sexual reproduction and gestation - processes they've studied, developing some rough ideas about how it works. The biologist might talk about the sperm/egg business, the embryo development, the umbilical cord, etc etc...
Now, no religious person in their right mind would try to argue that gestation doesn't happen, or that it's a stupid idea, or that it's somehow antithetical to God Himself, right? It's a logical idea, it totally makes sense, it's been extensively studied, and there is an enormous amount of evidence to support the fact that it happens that way. Additionally, even under the microscopes of the sciences, it still appears beautiful, brilliant and still somewhat mysterious at its core.
On the other side, no biologist in his right mind could legitimately suggest that knowledge of the gestation process somehow 'disproves' the existence of a deity, because there's no connection, and no relevant evidence produced. This is all due to the fact that it *is not even possible to conceive* of any scientific evidence or experiment that would 'disprove' such a thing. The two fields are separate, separate, separate. And I'm talking not like Africa and Australia are separate, but more like Africa is separate from, say, the numeric combination code for my gym padlock.
But still we see religious people for some reason offended by the very notion of evolutionary theory, and we see fake 'scientists' trying to use the theory to somehow attack the idea of a divine being's existence at all. It's a silly conflict between two sides that really aren't interested in learning anything, and aren't generous enough to even be capable of understanding what their 'opponent' is trying to say in the first place.
So look - there's no need to talk about 'darwinists', because it makes it sound like a religion, or some kind of movement, when in truth it's nothing of the sort. These people you're up against are NOT blindly following some doctrine, they are merely rejecting a number of bad arguments made against what they see as a sensible and well-supported theory.
Me, as far as I can tell, the majority of the most common 'arguments' I've heard against evolutionary theory are based on drastic, dismal misunderstandings of the theory's most basic principles. Generally speaking, people who hate the idea of evolution haven't got a clue how it's actually supposed to work...
So please, even if you take only one thing away from my response to your piece, understand this: these 'darwinists' you complain about are NOT just being stubborn here, or blindly following some idea. People simply haven't yet given them any valid reason to doubt Darwin's theory. The main 'anti-evolution' arguments are being rejected based on the *merits of the arguments*. You need to do better.
You want to turn evolutionary theory on it's head? Point out the fossil amidst all those of the 'cambrian explosion' that looks like a man, instead of some bottom-dwelling arthropod. Dig up a walrus fossil from the Carboniferous era, or a monkey skull in the belly of a dinosaur or *something*. But a video of some dude standing up on stage talking about something he doesn't understand to people who don't understand what he's talking about isn't going to help your case.
So if you insist on twisting (and arguably sullying) both religion and evolutionary theory into some imaginary conflict of opposing 'ideologies', then at least you can rest easy knowing that 'your side' has an inherent advantage: you could some day conceivably, actually prove that Darwin was dead wrong. There is however no conceivable way that your opponents' could ever 'disprove' the existence of your God... there is by definition no evidence they could ever produce. And you know what? They probably won't try, why would they? It is the anti-darwin crowd pushing this issue, so the onus is on you to bring something rational to the table.
If you think you can do it and would like to test it out on me, I'm willing to talk... I'm kind of interested to see what all the fuss is about. I have no interest in debating the existence of any gods, but I am happy to explain why your arguments are being rejected.
Write me, or post a response on your site and drop me a note to let me know the ball is in my court. Maybe lay out for me one of your strongest arguments against evolutionary theory, and I'll respond and we can keep moving through them all if you like. I'd like to hear one that actually makes me think a little bit...
Dave
nanibold@gmail.com
I understand how its a stretch for someone like yourself to begin to understand the theory of evolution and the origin of life. I myself sometimes doubt that something as wonderful and complicated as life to be the result of the random collisions of particles. However, I find it even harder to base my 'beliefs' on centuries old texts and a divine being which is impossible find tangible evidence of its existence. The only way I can believe your theory is if I stopped all rational thinking, and just blindly followed what I was told.
ReplyDelete