Science and Religion

[TheGrungeDiva]

I did not make an error. I've delt with many evolutionists before. Micro =/= macro evolution. There is ZERO scientific evidence that micro automatically leads to macro.

I'm not saying you've never dealt with scientists before. You may have "dealt with" or "talked to" thousands of scientists. That doesn't mean you understand the theory. If you think there is "zero" evidence for so-called "macro-evolution," then you don't understand evolution, and you have not studied it, because the truth is, there is evidence, you just haven't looked for it or refuse to see it.

I've "dealt with" a lot of mechanics. I still don't know how to fix a car.

I see no reason to believe this stuff just because the evolutionists are proclaiming it to be true.

If you want to study this topic, I encourage you to take an introductory biology course at your local community college. In such a course, you will be shown actual evidence, and tools for discovering even more evidence on your own, so that you don't have to rely on what the experts say, but you'd be able to prove it for yourself.

Going back to the car example, I could take a course or two at a community college and learn a few things, maybe figure out how to change my own oil, or replace spark plugs. Without that, I have to trust when the mechanic tells me "you need a new air filter" or "your breaks are shot, you'd better replace them, that will be $900." It's my choice whether to trust him or learn it on my own. Of course, he could be lying just to make extra money. That's why it's in my interest to learn as much as I can, or to find someone I can trust not to lie to me. Like a husband who can say, "No, your breaks are fine."

I'm not sure what scientists have to gain by agreeing collectively to lie. That's a very strange conspiracy theory, that all the scientists in the world have gotten together and agreed on this convoluted story about evolution. I'm not sure why they would do such a thing, especially since proving it wrong would be so easy: just study biology and say, "wait, the emperor has no clothes." Many have tried to do that, and none have succeeded. Every time someone tries to do that, they have been soundly defeated by pure logic and evidence. Seems to me that alone should be enough proof for anyone that evolution is true, and the conspiracy theory is false, but I understand some people really just need to figure things out for themselves, so I certainly do invite you, and anyone else who doubts the scientists, to study the subject for yourself. Start from scratch, with an open mind, and let someone explain the theory to you who actually knows what it is (not someone who says it's wrong, because they will not be telling you the truth about the theory).

If you actually succeed and become the first person in history to "prove" evolution wrong, I will be impressed.

 

[megaman125]

You complain of biased by evolutionists then you ramble on about 'typical atheists'. 'Microevolution, change within a species, does have loads of evidence, including DNA mutations, adaptations, natural selection and repeatable experiements that verify it' You're contradicting yourself, there is no point saying something and then complaining I'm making it up, you stated you agreed with natural selection.That is the core of evolution do you know the theory at all, have you read the book?

I never denied microevolution. So no, I don't see any contradiction in my words, and the fact that you still can't point it out only leaves me to conclude that your words are empty.

I'm not saying you've never dealt with scientists before. You may have "dealt with" or "talked to" thousands of scientists. That doesn't mean you understand the theory. If you think there is "zero" evidence for so-called "macro-evolution," then you don't understand evolution, and you have not studied it, because the truth is, there is evidence, you just haven't looked for it or refuse to see it.

You presented zero evidence that micro evolution leads to macro evolution. Go ahead, use the scientific method to demonstrate that micro evolution leads to macro evolution. Show me the evidence.

If you want to study this topic, I encourage you to take an introductory biology course at your local community college. In such a course, you will be shown actual evidence, and tools for discovering even more evidence on your own, so that you don't have to rely on what the experts say, but you'd be able to prove it for yourself.

You keep making assumptions about me as if I know nothing and have never studied it. The fact is, you know next to nothing about me. I've already been there and done that. I've heard just about all there is to hear from the evolutionists.

I'm not sure what scientists have to gain by agreeing collectively to lie. That's a very strange conspiracy theory, that all the scientists in the world have gotten together and agreed on this convoluted story about evolution. I'm not sure why they would do such a thing, especially since proving it wrong would be so easy: just study biology and say, "wait, the emperor has no clothes." Many have tried to do that, and none have succeeded. Every time someone tries to do that, they have been soundly defeated by pure logic and evidence.

So defeat me with evidence then. "Go take a class" is not evidence. Show me the scientific experiements that demonstrate micro evolution leading to macro evolution. If you have no such evidence, then everything I said stands. micro leading to macro is just an assumption that you have to believe becuase that's how the evolutionists tell you to beleive.

Seems to me that alone should be enough proof for anyone that evolution is true, and the conspiracy theory is false, but I understand some people really just need to figure things out for themselves, so I certainly do invite you, and anyone else who doubts the scientists, to study the subject for yourself. Start from scratch, with an open mind, and let someone explain the theory to you who actually knows what it is (not someone who says it's wrong, because they will not be telling you the truth about the theory).

If you don't think there's any bias in evolutionists, then go look up the cases where scientists were fired and blacklisted for questioning evolution or even mentioning intelligent design.

And once again, you keep assuming that you know me. I've had many people explain the theory to me. When I start asking for scientific evidence to verify these things, I get nothing.

If you actually succeed and become the first person in history to "prove" evolution wrong, I will be impressed.

No, I wouldn't be the first one. The historical claims of evolution was a religion when it was introduced, and it's still a religion today.

 

[DannyC]

I never denied microevolution. So no, I don't see any contradiction in my words, and the fact that you still can't point it out only leaves me to conclude that your words are empty.




You presented zero evidence that micro evolution leads to macro evolution. Go ahead, use the scientific method to demonstrate that micro evolution leads to macro evolution. Show me the evidence.



You keep making assumptions about me as if I know nothing and have never studied it. The fact is, you know next to nothing about me. I've already been there and done that. I've heard just about all there is to hear from the evolutionists.



So defeat me with evidence then. "Go take a class" is not evidence. Show me the scientific experiements that demonstrate micro evolution leading to macro evolution. If you have no such evidence, then everything I said stands. micro leading to macro is just an assumption that you have to believe becuase that's how the evolutionists tell you to beleive.



If you don't think there's any bias in evolutionists, then go look up the cases where scientists were fired and blacklisted for questioning evolution or even mentioning intelligent design.

And once again, you keep assuming that you know me. I've had many people explain the theory to me. When I start asking for scientific evidence to verify these things, I get nothing.



No, I wouldn't be the first one. The historical claims of evolution was a religion when it was introduced, and it's still
a religion today.[/QUOTE

There is no point continuing this, you don't want to be objective you just want to argue for no reason. I see now you do not know the theory so I leave you with that.

 

[megaman125]

You keep claiming I don't know it, but yet you cannot provide any of the evidence I ask for. If you want to believe the fantasy historical claims, you're free to do so. But there's no reason why I need to. I don't need you telling me what I HAVE TO BELIEVE about the past. I didn't come here to believe man's doctrine anyways.

 

[DannyC]

You keep claiming I don't know it, but yet you cannot provide any of the evidence I ask for. If you want to believe the fantasy historical claims, you're free to do so. But there's no reason why I need to. I don't need you telling me what I HAVE TO BELIEVE about the past. I didn't come here to believe man's doctrine anyways.

I agree you didn't come to listen.

 

[megaman125]

I agree you didn't come to listen.

And you didn't present the evidence I requested for micro leading to macro evolution. I'll by praying for you Danny.

 

[hellopeople]

science and religion cannot mix, one cannot hold both science and faith.

science produces skepticism and rationality and doubt the worst enemy of faith.

Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

holding closely to science and the wisdom of men dwindles your faith.

Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

 

[DannyC]

And you didn't present the evidence I requested for micro leading to macro evolution. I'll by praying for you Danny.

No evidence would suffice for someone who refuses to listen.

 

[megaman125]

No evidence would suffice for someone who refuses to listen.

You don't have evidence. Like I said, I've been there and done this before many many times. I am never provided with the evidence I ask for.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Show me the evidence.

Gladly.

Here are a few to get you started. For the websites, I recommend you go to the sites, get the names of reference materials, and then go to your library to read the references. Don't trust anything published on the web, because anyone can say anything on the web, as you know. The others are actual physical books you will need to get from your local library.

Websites:
evolution.berkeley.edu
evolution/library/04/index.html
http://www.teachthemscience.org/evidence

Books:
Smith, C.B. and Sullivan, C. (2007). The Top 10 Myths about Evolution.
Coyne, Jerry A. (2009). Why Evolution is True.
Darwin, Charles. (1859). The Origin of Species.
Carroll, Sean B. (2006). The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution.

The fact is, you know next to nothing about me.

I know that you think evolution is "wrong." That is all I need to know in order to know that you are wrong.

If someone told you that the sky was green, you would know they were wrong. It wouldn't matter if they were blind, or if they were from another planet, or whatever excuse they had. They're still wrong.

If you don't think there's any bias in evolutionists, then go look up the cases where scientists were fired and blacklisted for questioning evolution or even mentioning intelligent design.

If a math teacher states that 2+2=5, and tries to teach his or her students this, that teacher is going to be fired. If the teacher insists, despite being told repeatedly of his or her error, that 2+2=5, that teacher is going to be black-listed, and he or she will not be hired as a math teacher anywhere.

Is that because the mathematics community is "out to get" free-thinkers who want to believe that 2+2=5?

No, it's because 2+2 is not 5, has never been 5, and never will be 5. Kids need to learn that 2+2=4, not 5, not 3, and not purple. Teaching kids things that just aren't true is unacceptable.

If a teacher were able to prove somehow that 2+2=5, then we can talk. So far, I have not seen anyone prove that 2+2=5. I am absolutely certain that no one will ever be able to prove that 2+2=5, because I know and can show that 2+2=4, and nothing else.

The same goes for evolution. It is provable and proven. Anyone who thinks that it isn't just doesn't understand it, just as you would say someone who thought 2+2=5 just didn't understand math, no matter how much they insisted they understood it.

In fact, you don't even have to like that 2+2=4. It's still true. That's just the way it is. Denying it, ignoring it, rejecting it won't change the fact.

 

[megaman125]

Gladly.

Here are a few to get you started. For the websites, I recommend you go to the sites, get the names of reference materials, and then go to your library to read the references. Don't trust anything published on the web, because anyone can say anything on the web, as you know. The others are actual physical books you will need to get from your local library.

Websites:
evolution.berkeley.edu
evolution/library/04/index.html
http://www.teachthemscience.org/evidence

Books:
Smith, C.B. and Sullivan, C. (2007). The Top 10 Myths about Evolution.
Coyne, Jerry A. (2009). Why Evolution is True.
Darwin, Charles. (1859). The Origin of Species.
Carroll, Sean B. (2006). The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution.

None of this is what I asked for, which is typical of evolutionists. I asked for EXPERIEMENTS that DEMONSTRATE microevolution leading the macroevolution. All I ever get is "just assume that micro leads to macro. We think that it does, so just believe it, BELIEVE IT."

I know that you think evolution is "wrong." That is all I need to know in order to know that you are wrong.

Yet no one can provide proof for the historical claims, or that those claims are even possible. It always boils down to just assuming and believing that evolution is true. Oh yeah, and here's 15 questions evolutionists can't give sufficient answers to.

15 questions for evolutionists | 2011 | fp articles

If someone told you that the sky was green, you would know they were wrong. It wouldn't matter if they were blind, or if they were from another planet, or whatever excuse they had. They're still wrong.


If a math teacher states that 2+2=5, and tries to teach his or her students this, that teacher is going to be fired. If the teacher insists, despite being told repeatedly of his or her error, that 2+2=5, that teacher is going to be black-listed, and he or she will not be hired as a math teacher anywhere.

Is that because the mathematics community is "out to get" free-thinkers who want to believe that 2+2=5?

No, it's because 2+2 is not 5, has never been 5, and never will be 5. Kids need to learn that 2+2=4, not 5, not 3, and not purple. Teaching kids things that just aren't true is unacceptable.

If a teacher were able to prove somehow that 2+2=5, then we can talk. So far, I have not seen anyone prove that 2+2=5. I am absolutely certain that no one will ever be able to prove that 2+2=5, because I know and can show that 2+2=4, and nothing else.

So bad analogies prove evolution is true? This has nothing to do with the evidence I asked for.

The same goes for evolution. It is provable and proven.

Ok, let's try this again. According to the theory of evolution, the first living cell + evolution = every different living animal we have today. The first single living cell would have reproduced asexually. Now here's the evidence I'm asking for. Give me an EXPERIEMENT that DEMONSTRATES that an asexual reproducing organism evolves and developes sexual reproduction organs. In order for the historical claims of evolution to be true, asexual organisms must have evolved male and female reproductive parts. So go ahead, give me the evidence that follows the scientific method, and demonstrated that such a thing is even possible. Until then, I have no reason to believe that this happened in the past.

Anyone who thinks that it isn't just doesn't understand it, just as you would say someone who thought 2+2=5 just didn't understand math, no matter how much they insisted they understood it.

If I added up everytime an evolutionist said "you don't understand evolution," then evolution would ammount to nothing anyways. I don't need to believe your religion just becuase you keep claiming it's true, and that these things definetly happened in the past.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

None of this is what I asked for, which is typical of evolutionists. I asked for EXPERIEMENTS that DEMONSTRATE microevolution leading the macroevolution. All I ever get is "just assume that micro leads to macro. We think that it does, so just believe it, BELIEVE IT."

Excuse me, how do you KNOW this is not what you asked for? Did you read ANY of it?

This post of yours was made approximately one hour after I posted 3 websites and 4 hard-copy books of evidence, just as you asked for.

You may have actually clicked on all 3 of the links. In fact, I'll be generous. I doubt it, but let's just pretend that you actually read one or more articles on each of those websites.

You absolutely did NOT pick up and read ANY of the books I suggested. How do I know this? Because you would have needed to go to a book store or library to GET the books, and you're trying to tell me that you purchased or checked the books out, got home, and read even ONE of them completely, and then responded to my post?

No evidence would suffice for someone who refuses to listen.

And this is the problem.

The later 3 books of the 4 I listed absolutely do provide exactly what you're requesting. There is scientific evidence that proves exactly what you want. Problem is, you won't look at it. You refuse to look at it, because if you do, it will prove you wrong. It is irrefutable, and you know once you look at it, you will not be able to reject evolution any more.

What is easier, to close your eyes and say "ha, ha, you aren't showing me anything" or to risk being wrong?

Ok, let's try this again. According to the theory of evolution, the first living cell + evolution = every different living animal we have today. The first single living cell would have reproduced asexually. Now here's the evidence I'm asking for. Give me an EXPERIEMENT that DEMONSTRATES that an asexual reproducing organism evolves and developes sexual reproduction organs.

This exact experiment was actually described in detail in at least one of the links I provided you. Further proof that you didn't even bother to click the links, let alone read them. How pathetic.

And your 15 questions are so simple even a non-scientists such as myself can answer them.

The first two questions have the same answer: God created life, using evolution to do it. This is also the same answer for five, seven, and eight.

Numbers three, six, nine through twelve, and fourteen and fifteen all have false premises:
Three: Mutations don't create the huge volumes of information, and no one is claiming they do.
Six: Scientists do not "know" that living things were not created. Some scientists do not believe in God, and think that evolution is the only explanation needed. Most scientists do believe in god, and believe that God created all living things.
Nine: There are no "missing links." This is an urban legend that is just not true.
Ten: Calling an earthworm a "living fossil" likewise stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic premise of what evolution teaches.
Eleven: Chemistry did not create morality, and no one is claiming that it did.
Twelve: I don't even know what "evolutionary just-so story telling" means.
Fourteen: Evolution is not a theory about history; it is operational science, and has been observed through experiment.
Fifteen: It is not a dogmatic belief system, and it continues to explain new discoveries as they are made.

Number four: Natural selection is taught as evolution because that's exactly what it is. I'm not sure why you don't like the word "evolution." If you accept natural selection, then you accept evolution. If you think evolution teaches something other than natural selection, then you are mistaken about what evolution teaches. Which is what I've been saying all along.

On number thirteen, the writer of that question should be ashamed to have written it. The science of evolution has cured polio and small pox. Inoculations against hundreds -- possibly thousands -- of other sicknesses, diseases and disabilities have been discovered through evolutionary science. Children with birth defects have been given sight, hearing, skin grafts that would not have been possible without this science. Biologists are close to finding cures to cancer, AIDS, and even the common cold, all from evolutionary genetics. We even cloned a sheep! And this dofus asks "where's the scientific breakthrough?" Really?

Really?

 

[megaman125]

Excuse me, how do you KNOW this is not what you asked for? Did you read ANY of it?

You gave me generic evolution sites that I've been to before. I asked for an EXPERIEMENT. If you have such an EXPERIEMENT that DEMONSTRATES micro leading to macro, then link me directly to it. I'm not going to waste hours wading through the generic evolution sites I've been to countless times while still finding nothing in the end.

This post of yours was made approximately one hour after I posted 3 websites and 4 hard-copy books of evidence, just as you asked for.

You may have actually clicked on all 3 of the links. In fact, I'll be generous. I doubt it, but let's just pretend that you actually read one or more articles on each of those websites.

You continue to assume that I've never been to those site before, like as if I've never seen the evolutionist's side. You keep pretending your assumption is true.

You absolutely did NOT pick up and read ANY of the books I suggested. How do I know this? Because you would have needed to go to a book store or library to GET the books, and you're trying to tell me that you purchased or checked the books out, got home, and read even ONE of them completely, and then responded to my post?

Yay, more typical lines from typical evolutionists. I ask for evidence. "GO READ A BOOK. YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING. GO READ ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT'S A FACT."

The later 3 books of the 4 I listed absolutely do provide exactly what you're requesting. There is scientific evidence that proves exactly what you want. Problem is, you won't look at it. You refuse to look at it, because if you do, it will prove you wrong. It is irrefutable, and you know once you look at it, you will not be able to reject evolution any more.

And when the town clerk had quieted the crowd, he said, “Men of Ephesus, who is there who does not know that the city of the Ephesians is temple keeper of the great Artemis, and of the sacred stone that fell from the sky? Seeing then that these things cannot be denied, you ought to be quiet and do nothing rash.
Acts 19:35-36

You evolutionists sound exactly like these guys. "It's an undeniable fact." Yeah, it's as undeniable a fact as the sacred stone of artemis falling from the sky.

This exact experiment was actually described in detail in at least one of the links I provided you. Further proof that you didn't even bother to click the links, let alone read them. How pathetic.

So why can't you link me to the exact page with the experiement instead of the generic home page? Then you have to resort to instults. "You're pathetic." I've heard all this nonsense from evolutionists before. If your evidence was so strong, you wouldn't need to rely on insults.

And your 15 questions are so simple even a non-scientists such as myself can answer them.

The first two questions have the same answer: God created life, using evolution to do it. This is also the same answer for five, seven, and eight.

Numbers three, six, nine through twelve, and fourteen and fifteen all have false premises:
Three: Mutations don't create the huge volumes of information, and no one is claiming they do.
Six: Scientists do not "know" that living things were not created. Some scientists do not believe in God, and think that evolution is the only explanation needed. Most scientists do believe in god, and believe that God created all living things.
Nine: There are no "missing links." This is an urban legend that is just not true.
Ten: Calling an earthworm a "living fossil" likewise stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic premise of what evolution teaches.
Eleven: Chemistry did not create morality, and no one is claiming that it did.
Twelve: I don't even know what "evolutionary just-so story telling" means.
Fourteen: Evolution is not a theory about history; it is operational science, and has been observed through experiment.
Fifteen: It is not a dogmatic belief system, and it continues to explain new discoveries as they are made.

Number four: Natural selection is taught as evolution because that's exactly what it is. I'm not sure why you don't like the word "evolution." If you accept natural selection, then you accept evolution. If you think evolution teaches something other than natural selection, then you are mistaken about what evolution teaches. Which is what I've been saying all along.

Hey look, it's more of the same typical lines spewed out by evolutionists. You complain about me not looking at the links you gave me, when clearly you didn't look at the link I gave you. Because if you looked carefully, you would have seen this at the bottom of the page. Your typical responses have already been refuted.

15 questions responses 1 | Feedback 2011 | Feedback
15 questions responses 2 | Feedback 2011 | Feedback
15 questions responses 3 | Feedback 2011 | Feedback

On number thirteen, the writer of that question should be ashamed to have written it. The science of evolution has cured polio and small pox. Inoculations against hundreds -- possibly thousands -- of other sicknesses, diseases and disabilities have been discovered through evolutionary science. Children with birth defects have been given sight, hearing, skin grafts that would not have been possible without this science. Biologists are close to finding cures to cancer, AIDS, and even the common cold, all from evolutionary genetics. We even cloned a sheep! And this dofus asks "where's the scientific breakthrough?" Really?

For instance, just to comment on this. Claims and beliefs about history don't do squat for helping medical science. Finding cures to diseases can be done without believing in unproven events of "billions of years ago."

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

[TruthBeTold]

Another blog dedicated to evolution

Why Evolution Is True

 

[TruthBeTold]

Ok, let's try this again. According to the theory of evolution, the first living cell + evolution = every different living animal we have today. The first single living cell would have reproduced asexually. Now here's the evidence I'm asking for. Give me an EXPERIEMENT that DEMONSTRATES that an asexual reproducing organism evolves and developes sexual reproduction organs.

Where is the evidence that man can be made from dust and a woman from a rib?

 

[jimmydiggs]

Where is the evidence that man can be made from dust and a woman from a rib?

Genesis chapter 2.

 

[hattiebod]

And...you rea;lly think this is the answer, and the comfort to the grieving?

 

[TruthBeTold]

This is an interesting debate. Guess who wins?

"Science Refutes God" Debate [FULL] - Intelligence Squared U.S. - YouTube

 

[Ritter]

In science it is natural to build theoretical constructs based on data observed. Why? Theories make sense of the data.

We theorize in our day to day lives about many things, often other people. Or at least I do. I'm naturally given to theorize (well hypothesize would be the more accurate term in my case). There are times in which we believe what we want to believe and only look at the facts that support those beliefs.
If you have ever seen a minister take scripture out of context, this is precisely what they are doing.

The New Atheists today are generally people claiming to be scientists who take the data they view as scripture out of context. They theorize in the direction they want to theorize in though it does happen to enter a realm outside science.

Science itself is not, then hostile to Christianity. It is the competing philosophies that propose to be more scientific that wail against God's truth in vain.