• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

proof against evolution

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
painted wolf said:
Naturally energy needs a creator... otherwise we wouldn't have so many problems with gas prices right now. :banghead3:

Gasoline isn't creating energy, it's converting energy. It's a fossil fuel, which means it is a fossil, the remains of dead plants and animals. The sun provided the initial energy to make the plants and animals, and we can gather the fossil fuel and convert the energy stored in it (chemical energy) into heat energy (by burning), which we can then convert into kinetic (motion) energy, by using an internal combustion engine.
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
The theory of evolution is not scientifically valid? By that definition, neither is gravity.

gravity is false, everyone! It's nothing more than a stupid idea created by an old fuddy-duddy called Newton and expanded on by Einstein and then Hawking because they can get paid royalties everytime someone falls down! it's just not true!!!!!

Humph.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Gasoline isn't creating energy, it's converting energy. It's a fossil fuel, which means it is a fossil, the remains of dead plants and animals. The sun provided the initial energy to make the plants and animals, and we can gather the fossil fuel and convert the energy stored in it (chemical energy) into heat energy (by burning), which we can then convert into kinetic (motion) energy, by using an internal combustion engine.

I'm quite aware of that. :rolleyes: However the energy that is stored in such fossil fuels had to origionate somewhere... it had to be "created" from the convirsion of mass somewhere. The sun doesn't just magic its energy into existance... it is created by the fission of matter.

My point was that since matter needs a "creator" then energy must have a primary source as well... all matter is just energy in a more 'stable' form. Energy isn't sourceless... it isn't God.

Sadly Truth, harunyahya is filled with errors and misrepresentations on the theory of Evolution.

wa:do
 

Opethian

Active Member
THE theory of evolution maintains that life on Earth came about as the result of chance and emerged by itself from natural conditions

False. The theory of evolution says nothing about the coming about of life on earth. Thus, the first sentence of the first paragraph is a grave and fundamental error.

This theory is not a scientific law or a proven fact.

Obviously, since proven facts are only possible in mathematics. The theory of gravity is "just a theory" too, but that doesn't change anything to its validity or importance. We can conclude that this sentence was written to try and deceive people who have little or no knowledge of scientific terminology and the way evidence and proof works in science.

Underneath its scientific façade it is a materialist worldview that Darwinists are trying to impose on society.

Delusional paranoia.

The bases of this theory, which has been disproved by science in every field,

Blatant lie. The bases of evolution theory are rock solid.

are suggestions and propaganda methods consisting of deceptions, falsehood, contradiction, cheating, and sleight of hand.

Pure irony, since this would perfectly describe this Haran Yahya's entire book.

The theory of evolution was put forward as an imaginary hypothesis in the context of the primitive scientific understanding of the nineteenth century, and to this day it has not been backed up by any scientific discovery or experiment. On the contrary, all the methods employed to confirm the theory have merely proven its invalidity.

Another blatant lie, there are mountains of evidence for evolution, see here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
No methods employed whatsoever to confirm the theory have proven its invalidity, and if there were, then why doesn't he show us? So far all he has done is make false statements and provide nothing at all to back them up.

The living cell, it is commonly agreed by the world of science, is the most complex structure that mankind has so far encountered. Modern science has revealed that just one living cell has a much more complex structure and mutually interconnected complicated systems than a large city. Such a complex structure can only function if all its separate parts emerge at the same time and in full working order.

Wrong, the seperate parts need not emerge at the same time at all, just look at the different heart structures going from amphibians to mammals for example (there are many many more examples like this). Or the arisal and evolution of the brain for instance?

Otherwise, it will serve no purpose,

Yes it will, only a different purpose. Is that so hard to grasp? Either this man is one of the dumbest people on the planet or he is deliberately trying to deceive people with his book.

For that reason, the complex design in just one cell clearly shows that God created life. (For more details, see Harun Yahya, The Miracle in the Cell)

Even if we would assume that the evolution theory is false, this is not proof at all that some god created life.

I'll stop here because so far everything I've read has been deception, lies, false statements, erroneous logic, and nothing points to any change in the coming text.
Let me ask you something "The Truth": why could you not see these immense flaws in the text yourself? I already know the answer: you have been brainwashed.
 

stemann

Time Bandit
OK The_Truth, I am not going to make anything up here, I'm just going to juxtapose some things I saw on www.harunyahya.com (why did you put a "YES!" emoticon next to that in your signature? Yes what? Is it supposed to convince people even more of the truth of the website? "Oh, I saw this website, originally I wasn't going to believe it but then I realised that the person who linked to it had put a "YES!" emoticon next to it so therefore I now believe it."):

This great website!!! YES!!! said:
Born in Ankara in 1956, Adnan Oktar is a prominent Turkish intellectual. Completely devoted to moral values and dedicated to communicating the sacred values he cherishes to other people, Oktar started his intellectual struggle in 1979 during his education at Mimar Sinan University's Academy of Fine Arts. During his university years, he carried out detailed research into the prevalent materialistic philosophies and ideologies around him, to the extent of becoming even more knowledgeable about them than their advocates. As a result of his accumulation of knowledge, he has written various books on the fallacy of the theory of evolution. His dedicated intellectual effort against Darwinism and materialism has grown out to be a worldwide phenomenon.

1) Completely devoted to moral values... The text does not specify any moral values except "moral values." So he could believe anything to be "moral"- all that sentence attempts is to convince other people who believe themselves to be "moral" to ally with himself.

2) Was it an "intellectual struggle" because he is almost completely wrong in everything he does and says and therefore has to struggle against logical scientific analysis.

3) Against materialism. Thats a larf:

the non-materialistic offerings of Harun Yahya said:
40 Pcs. DVDs Documentary Film Set (2006)
The best present for your family
Big Demand! For a limited time only.

Since there is a Big Demand, we are glad to offer you a new campaign which includes all of DVDs in one package.


The products in the package are selected due to the statistics obtained from our customers most visited pages.


Now you can have this unique archive with more than 50% discount and share with your family and friends.


Also traditionally World Wide Free Shipping for all our special customers!


This offer includes;
Impressive sound effects and images,the best
footage and original records and also official publishers stamped DVDs.


Price: $ 96.00

Well, I suppose $96.00 is a small price to pay for eternal truth. Allah be praised.
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
Which is?
I don't know about the first sentance (how old is the Theory of evolution?) but pretty much every sentance after that is a straw-man.
It [the theory of evolution] proposes the lie that they [humans] came into this world as the result of chance and that they are a "species of animal."
The theory of evolution does not, in fact, discuss the origin of initial life; nor does it require "chance".
Furthermore, it [the theory of evolution] teaches them that the only law in life is a selfish struggle for survival and to stay alive.
Do I really need to dissect this one?
The effects of this idea can be clearly seen in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries: people's increasing selfishness, the moral degeneration in society, the rapid spread of self-interest, ruthlessness, and violence, the development of totalitarian and bloody ideologies such as fascism and communism, social and individual crises as people grow distant from the morality of religion
The errors here are almost to long too respond to.

There's no way to establish a casual relationship between the theory of evolution and the general behavior of society.

There's no support for the claim that people are more selfish than in the past or that society is less moral. Further, any attempt to relate these two is undermined by the generally higher moral behavior of more plural and atheistic societies.

The concept of facism certainly was not developed in the 19th-20th century. It's likely the oldest form of government there is. Further, communism is not totalitarian, and is very moral in its premise.
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
Albert Einstein’s equation states that Energy = Mass x C2. The law of physics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
General relativity and the first law of thermodynamics respectively.

Which means the energy that created the universe cannot have a beginning nor an end.
When did we decide that the universe was "created"?

Also, there must be something that existed before the universe and that will continue to exist after the universe.
That doesn't even make sense. It's like saying there's something north of the north pole. How can something exist before time? What does "before time" even mean.

Even if I assume there was a "before time", how do you establish that something was there?

By applying Albert Einstein’s formula, the universe must have a creator because the universe has mass (M). God does not need a creator because God does not have mass (M). God is energy (E).
The whole point of Einstein's theory is that MATTER AND ENERGY ARE THE SAME.

Energy has mass. Matter is made of energy.
 

roli

Born Again,Spirit Filled
flupke said:
Come on, all you creationists and intelligent designists ! I know you have it...
Come up with a well formulated proof against evolution.
Could you please share with us what you believe ?evolution,creation eg: big bang, macro,micro
It will better help to answer the question.
 

gramps

Member
Evolution verses creation;
This topic has been discussed for thousands of years. I personally believe it could be both ways. As a Mormon we have established that there was a first world (Just for mormons) but Joseph Smith said twice that all men were co-equal with God in the beginning. The only time, in my way of reasoning, that mere man could have been co-equal with his creator is the time in history before there were any Gods. According to Mormon theology we were all at one time the spirit entity known as "Intelligence". Intelligence had no other power than that of mind. An intelligence did not possess the power to communicate or talk, touch, taste, hear and so on. Yet they knew everything there was to do so far as logical information was concerned. As time passed one of these intelligence, who had no beginning and will have no ending, created an instrument by the shear power of mind, and with the use of that instrument he vocalized the first word that broke the awesome silence of the specie of intelligence. The first word, to me now, not so much in the way of scripture was God.
St. John 1: 1 In the beginning was the word, the word was with God, the word was God. To me it is to be interpreted just as simply as that. However, whether the first being was in human form or some other form lives a quandary of thought. To me, it was a man just as much as we are men. The Mormons also teach or did teach in the temple every day that the creation of man was only figuratively so far as the first world was concerned. All Adams and all people after that are related to the first Adam of the first world.
There is much more to write on this subject but I will leave it here for your own relationship with God to tell you if that is true or not. God said in 1 John 2: 27 that we do not need any man to teach us, so that means to me that we should only be taught by God through the Holy Spirit of God. But you tell me what you think.
gramps
 

Smoke

Done here.
Harun Yahya said:
THE theory of evolution maintains that life on Earth came about as the result of chance and emerged by itself from natural conditions.
Unfortunately, Harun Yahya isn't the first creationist to try to disprove evolution without understanding the subject.
Harun Yahya said:
The bases of this theory, which has been disproved by science in every field, are suggestions and propaganda methods consisting of deceptions, falsehood, contradiction, cheating, and sleight of hand.
Harun Yahya said:
On the contrary, all the methods employed to confirm the theory have merely proven its invalidity.
Here Harun Yahya reveals that -- unless he's the basest sort of liar -- he has no grasp of his subject at all. Second paragraph, and I've lost patience. I can't see any point in reading any further.
 

Booko

Deviled Hen
Tiberius said:
The theory of evolution is not scientifically valid? By that definition, neither is gravity.

gravity is false, everyone! It's nothing more than a stupid idea created by an old fuddy-duddy called Newton and expanded on by Einstein and then Hawking because they can get paid royalties everytime someone falls down! it's just not true!!!!!

:thud:

Funny...it seems to be working just fine with my smiley.

Should I expect a bill from Hawking?
 

AndyHolland

New Member
CO2 + energy --> C + O2 : for 3 billion years the atmosphere was conditioned, and few plants took advantage of C + O2 --> CO2 + energy in the next billion years.

Not that I am against evolution! It is not scientific to pose a theory of origin of something one does not understand - and we cannot make a cell from scratch, let alone a blade of grass, or a tree, or an insect.

Evolution going to "origin" (and I have to read that nonsense in Science & Nature all the time) is about as crackpot as it gets. Darwin was nuts calling his theory "origin" and the whole debate is idiotic. Our science is way too primative, and we now know that science has fundamental limitations. Darwin himself pointed out his theory was not provable - so why did he pose it as a theory? Is that good science?

In the beginnng was the Word... Logical, consistent with observation, and absolutely true.

andy holland
sinner
 

scitsofreaky

Active Member
Darwin was nuts calling his theory "origin" and the whole debate is idiotic.
EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ABIOGENESIS! Gah! "Origin" is refering to the origin of the diversity of life, not the origin of life. Hence it is Origin of Species not Origin of Life.
It seems to me that some use Darwin as a red herring. Instead of talking about the current theory of evolution, they attempt to focus the discussion on what Darwin said. Who cares what Darwin said, it doesn't really matter. If you want to discuss evolution, discuss evolution, not what Darwin said.
In the beginnng was the Word... Logical, consistent with observation, and absolutely true.
Logical? How is, "In the beginning was logos (which, for whatever reason is translated as "the word" in this instance)" logical? Consistent with what observation? You have observed logos in the beginning? I'm not even going to bother with "absolutely true."
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
AndyHolland said:
Evolution going to "origin" (and I have to read that nonsense in Science & Nature all the time) is about as crackpot as it gets. Darwin was nuts calling his theory "origin" and the whole debate is idiotic. Our science is way too primative, and we now know that science has fundamental limitations. Darwin himself pointed out his theory was not provable - so why did he pose it as a theory? Is that good science?
"Origin" simply means "what comes before." It does not mean "what comes first."

Parents are the origin of offspring. One species is the origin of another. That's all Darwin meant. "The Origin of Species" refers to parent and offspring species.

"Theory" simply means "not yet disproven." If you can demonstrate how it is false, then the theory is busted; not until then.

(And it hasn't been busted. What's really funny about Creation Science trying to disprove science is that, even if they do disprove the scientific theory, that means it automatically has been replaced with a better scientific theory that builds on the former and more appropriately fits the same facts. They can't win!)
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
Evolution verses creation;
This topic has been discussed for thousands of years.
Considering the evolution, as a theory, is only a couple of hundred years old; I'd love to know how it's been a topic for thousands.

You seem to have failed even a rudamentary grasp of the topic.
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
Funny...it seems to be working just fine with my smiley.

Should I expect a bill from Hawking?
Ever give one of those insults that just goes right over the head of the person insulted? You just did that to yourself.

I'm reminded of the radio DJ who was railing on education and got into a rand on "the three 'R's", Reading, Writing, and Arithmatic. He said that we could not expect a good education system when we were calling them "three Rs", as they were "two Rs and an A". Of course, someone called him and let him know that they were "and R, a W, and an A".

Of course, your smiley is an animated GIF, with numeric values cycling through a swquence on the memory of my video card. It's not falling nor related to gravity.

Also, Tiberius rightly pointed out that the definition given for "valid" devalidated gravity. Your assertion that the theory of Gravity is true, while unsupported, simply agrees with his point that the definition given was fallacious.

You have, in all seriousness, attempted to disagree; and in doing so underscored his point.
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
"Theory" simply means "not yet disproven." If you can demonstrate how it is false, then the theory is busted; not until then.
That would be a hypothesis. A theory not oly must meet all known facts, and cannot have been disproven, it must also make predictions which can be tested for, and they must be tested, and the predictions must be accurate.
 
Top