Proof Against Evolution

[darkpenguin]

My apologies. I'm from the UK. Religious education is mandatory here.

as boring as religious education classes sometimes seemed i'm actually glad that they are mandatory in the uk, those classes gave me alot of insight into what goes on in the world and helped me make my mind up about my beliefs and ideas.
I think mandatory r.e. should be tought in every school in all countries then maybe we would all be more tolerant of each other rather than thinking someones in the wrong for being a different religion or having different ideas and thinking outside of the box!

 

[YamiB.]

as boring as religious education classes sometimes seemed i'm actually glad that they are mandatory in the uk, those classes gave me alot of insight into what goes on in the world and helped me make my mind up about my beliefs and ideas.
I think mandatory r.e. should be tought in every school in all countries then maybe we would all be more tolerant of each other rather than thinking someones in the wrong for being a different religion or having different ideas and thinking outside of the box!

I agree. I bet it would be a pain to get them started in the US though. You would have conservatives saying that the classes are trying to make their kids go into other religions and liberals would be saying that they violate the Seperation of Church and State. In the off chance that they do get started up here I would love to teach one.

 

[Mister_T]

My apologies. I'm from the UK. Religious education is mandatory here.

My apoligies as well. I didn't know that religious education was mandatory anywhere.

It's not science.

I agree.

As far as 'unintelligent' goes it is simply irrational to hold beliefs in ancient mythology against the gradient of available evidence.

I can definitely see were you are coming from. But a lot of people don't consider creationism to be ancient mythology. They feel very strongly about that set of beliefs.

Science is certainly not the be all and end all of human scholarship, but you'd think it was from the way creationists strive to have their myths termed 'scientific'.

I personally, have no problem with learning about evolution. As far as my beliefs, I remain neutural on the subject of Evolution vs Creationism. How I got here is not really important nor relevant to me.

 

[Mister_T]

I wonder how many will ditch math class?
I would have not bothered with history myself, though science and phys ed were fun.

Being educated on the theory of evlolution is not vital for you to function properly in society. Math (to an extent) is.

 

[Yerda]

I can definitely see were you are coming from. But a lot of people don't consider creationism to be ancient mythology. They feel very strongly about that set of beliefs.

I know they do, and they are welcome to. The relevance of evolution to modern biology is hard to overlook however. Taking evolutionary theory out of biology would disfigure it's coherence drastically. I personally don't think we can afford to damage science for the sake of personal beliefs, no matter how strongly held they are.

I personally, have no problem with learning about evolution. As far as my beliefs, I remain neutural on the subject of Evolution vs Creationism. How I got here is not really important nor relevant to me.

That's fair enough. If you haven't learned about evolution the only rational position would be neutrality.

 

[Mister_T]

I know they do, and they are welcome to. The relevance of evolution to modern biology is hard to overlook however. Taking evolutionary theory out of biology would disfigure it's coherence drastically. I personally don't think we can afford to damage science for the sake of personal beliefs, no matter how strongly held they are.

Where did I say we should take it out? I just said that it shouldn't be a forced graduating requirement in public schools for people who don't believe in it. Public schools aren't forcing people to learn about religion. There's a double standard.

That's fair enough. If you haven't learned about evolution the only rational position would be neutrality.

Actually I was eduacated on evolution long before I became "religious." I'm quite familiar with anthropology and will more than likely be switching my major from kineasology to biology. My neutrality has nothing to do with knowledge. I can accept the theory of evolution and still hold what I believe. I'm just not going to say one is wrong and one is right.

 

[Yerda]

Where did I say we should take it out?

Sorry, you didn't.

There's a double standard.

I dare say there is.

I'm just not going to say one is wrong and one is right.

That's your prerogative.

 

[Mister_T]

That's your prerogative.

It sure is

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Not only is Religious education Mandatoty in the UK.
But as of last week the Government banned the use of
Creationism and Intelligent design material.

 

[Quiddity]

Not only is Religious education Mandatoty in the UK.
But as of last week the Government banned the use of
Creationism and Intelligent design material.

Banned it from what? The educational system?

 

[logician]

Of course for a time the study of evolution was banned quite recently in Kansas. It is strange how many "highly evolved" creatures cannot even accept that they evolved from preexistant life - with abundant evidence supporting it.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Banned it from what? The educational system?

In the uk there is a "National Curriculum" set by the government,This material purports to be "science" so is banned as not approved.
Private schools "could" use it but don't... they are even more traditional than Government schools. They must also think about their intake of students and damage that would be caused to both their cash flow and the ability of their students to find places at university. (the subject matter is not included in any university qualifying exams)

The purveyors of this material could set up their own schools, but would have trouble passing the necessary inspections, if this was taught as science.

Education in the UK is totally interlinked, with approved exam boards, even Religious founded schools must fit the system.

 

[troyjsmalley]

It is just fact that diversity exists within species. It is agreed that mutations and change occur in life. The question is: do these changes we are aware of within species, account for the variety of life? Richard Dawkins puts it this way, that within the relatively short time of existence of human life, we have bred dogs to such a great variety. From wolves and great danes to the tiny chihuahua. He extrapolates this and postulates that if we can account for the variety of dogs, then within the billions of years of life on Earth, surely the variety of life can be accounted for by similar processes, ie. natural selection.

However, to take a closer look, we notice that all dog species have 2 eyes, 4 legs, 2 ears, a tail, canine teeth and paws etc. Some things have not changed. And to use his logic, if it didn't change for these thousands of years, what empirical evidence can I provide that they will change in millions of years?


All of the evidence for evolution from one species to another are simply similarities. For example, when we humans develop in our mother's wombs, we, believe it or not, possess gills. Evolutionists say that because other forms of life have gills, that means one is probably descended from the other. (It is also possible that there could be 2 branches of the tree of life which evolved gills independently).
They automatically assume that likeness implies that they are related. But scientists know that likeness doesn't always mean that 2 things are related. Eg, both bats and birds have wings, but evolutionists contend that one did not evolve from the other.

Also, instead of providing how evolution happened assuming it did, evolutionists provide a means of how evolution could have happened. I trust you see the difference.

I believe we can all agree that atheists must believe in complete and naturalistic darwinian evolution in order to maintain their atheism. Theists on the other hand have the option of believing in evolution or not.

I must leave with this note. Both creationism and evolutionsim begin with premises concerning God. The former believes that God created the universe and tries to understand how God 'did it'. The latter holds that God is not needed to answer questions regarding our natural world, and seeks how the natural laws and processes govern the universe. I ask why not come to the scientific evidence without preconceptions of God and instead of reading 'creationistic' or 'atheistic' into the evidence, lets be real and complete evidentialists and draw our conclusions from the scientific evidence. If science says evolution, then evolution it is. If science says not evolution, then it is not evolution.

(of course, we should not think that all knowledge is to be known through science. Science has always been one of the channels of knowledge amongst philosophy etc)

Also, a question from me (a real question, not a rhetorical question):
If you put a male dog and a female dog on a planet and this planet is such that natural selection do not exist, if I came back to it in a million yrs, I should see a great variety of dogs. If the same planet 'had' natural selection, then wouldn't we see a lesser variety of dogs(natural selection would wipe out the inferior dogs)?

 

[Ryan2065]

Richard Dawkins puts it this way, that within the relatively short time of existence of human life, we have bred dogs to such a great variety. From wolves and great danes to the tiny chihuahua. He extrapolates this and postulates that if we can account for the variety of dogs, then within the billions of years of life on Earth, surely the variety of life can be accounted for by similar processes, ie. natural selection.

The dogs were bred by humans... It changes the way things are done greatly. Do you have any evidence that evolutionary wise it is harder for an animal to get an extra leg than to, say, gain hair? DNA holds the key to evolution and if you look at the DNA of creatures rather than their physical feartures you would be able to better understand their similarities.

However, to take a closer look, we notice that all dog species have 2 eyes, 4 legs, 2 ears, a tail, canine teeth and paws etc. Some things have not changed. And to use his logic, if it didn't change for these thousands of years, what empirical evidence can I provide that they will change in millions of years?

Well... you could look at the DNA involved... That greatly simplifies the process! Or you could ask yourself why is hair, eye color, height, etc, etc, so easy to change in a thousand years or so but changing the number of legs couldn't be done in a billion years? Thats a crapload of more time...

Also, instead of providing how evolution happened assuming it did, evolutionists provide a means of how evolution could have happened. I trust you see the difference.

Time travel isn't quite perfected yet...

I believe we can all agree that atheists must believe in complete and naturalistic darwinian evolution in order to maintain their atheism.

Why?

Theists on the other hand have the option of believing in evolution or not.

As do atheists.

I must leave with this note. Both creationism and evolutionsim begin with premises concerning God. The former believes that God created the universe and tries to understand how God 'did it'. The latter holds that God is not needed to answer questions regarding our natural world, and seeks how the natural laws and processes govern the universe. I ask why not come to the scientific evidence without preconceptions of God and instead of reading 'creationistic' or 'atheistic' into the evidence, lets be real and complete evidentialists and draw our conclusions from the scientific evidence. If science says evolution, then evolution it is. If science says not evolution, then it is not evolution.

Er... Scientists don't exactly throw evidence out the window because it might point to a god... They look at the evidence and find a better explanation for it Your call for leaving god out of science is currently done by most scientists. And really, what is the difference between removing god from science and believing god is not real so he is not in science?

Also... just a quick note... Evolution = life evolves... I believe you are talking about creation of the universe models and beginning of life models... all of which are NOT in evolution theory.

If you put a male dog and a female dog on a planet and this planet is such that natural selection do not exist, if I came back to it in a million yrs, I should see a great variety of dogs.

If there is no natural selection then more than likely you would see some slight differences between the dogs but they would all probably look around the same. Without natural selection there would be nothing making certain traits stand out... Remember, evolution works through natural selection. Remove natural selection and you have crippled evolution.

If the same planet 'had' natural selection, then wouldn't we see a lesser variety of dogs(natural selection would wipe out the inferior dogs)?

You would see a greater variety of dogs (and have other animals also! :angel2

 

[Random]

Of course for a time the study of evolution was banned quite recently in Kansas. It is strange how many "highly evolved" creatures cannot even accept that they evolved from preexistant life - with abundant evidence supporting it.

Ah, okay: no-one has any problem actually with life having Evolved from pre-existent Life. No problem there, because it is an observable fact the Life does so.

The contentious issue is Abiogenesis: in which Naturalists assert that Life arose from NON-life, ie. inanimate matter.

 

[Yerda]

However, to take a closer look, we notice that all dog species have 2 eyes, 4 legs, 2 ears, a tail, canine teeth and paws etc. Some things have not changed. And to use his logic, if it didn't change for these thousands of years, what empirical evidence can I provide that they will change in millions of years?

I'm not really sure how relevant your point is here, but you might as well take note that the homologous physiological structures run far deeper than the similarities in dog breeds. This is evidence for evolution.

What empirical evidence can you provide that they will change?

Here lies the problem of induction. We don't know. There is no reason to say that what occured yesterday will occur tomorrow. Past experience is the best we've got.

They automatically assume that likeness implies that they are related. But scientists know that likeness doesn't always mean that 2 things are related. Eg, both bats and birds have wings, but evolutionists contend that one did not evolve from the other.

That's what the evidence suggests.

Also, instead of providing how evolution happened assuming it did, evolutionists provide a means of how evolution could have happened. I trust you see the difference.

They do show how. They show the routes, the means, and the results.

I believe we can all agree that atheists must believe in complete and naturalistic darwinian evolution in order to maintain their atheism.

Atheists can believe in the supernatural if they choose. There are, besides, competing theories to Darwin's, they just aren't widely held.

If you put a male dog and a female dog on a planet and this planet is such that natural selection do not exist, if I came back to it in a million yrs, I should see a great variety of dogs. If the same planet 'had' natural selection, then wouldn't we see a lesser variety of dogs(natural selection would wipe out the inferior dogs)?

Under what conditions would living organisms escpae selctive pressure?

 

[Yerda]

Ah, okay: no-one has any problem actually with life having Evolved from pre-existent Life. No problem there, because it is an observable fact the Life does so.

You may find that more than a few creationists dispute this aggressively.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Here lies the problem of induction. We don't know. There is no reason to say that what occured yesterday will occur tomorrow. Past experience is the best we've got.

As the fund managers love to say,'Past results are no gaurantee of future performance.'

Under what conditions would living organisms escpae selctive pressure?

The highly specialised ones you create inside your own head to try and prove a point.

 

[troyjsmalley]

Notice that I did not try to prove creation in my last post. I did however criticise the approach scientists have when dealing with evolution.
I argued that atheists must believe in evolution in order to maintain their atheism. I could not find any other alternatives atheism has.
Regarding removing God from science, I must apologise for not clarifying. I did not mean that we remove God completely from science, but that we remove Him from our presumptions. I don't think we can prove God from what we don't know (god of the gaps), however, I do believe that if God exists, it might be possible to find evidence for His existence from what we do know (eg, the singularity of the universe).

I do believe that given a great amount of time, any species of life that we know of will probably find mutations and evolve into something else, provided it is not 'selected for extinction' by natural selection. We do know that natural selection is a controlling agent in that when the offspring of an animal contains a mutation, it is USUALLY, wiped out. The question I have is 'is there evidence that natural selection on occasions has preferred the new 'offshoot' lifeform over its ancestors? This is definitely true for minor variations, it is also possible for a major change. I am too skeptical of the evidence that evolutionists provide to believe in it.
Many would say that if minor changes are proven, and evolution is just a great series of minor steps, then why not believe in the power of evolution?
Because I have not been shown the evidence where many small changes changed one species into something totally different. The fruitflies under the x-ray doesn't do it for me. Just because it is mathematically probable that animals will evolve over many years doesn't make it true. I find it very hard to believe in anything unless I see harder evidence than this.
I would have no problem believing in evolution if only I was shown more substantial evidence. If there is, refer me to it(books, websites, journals, etc)
Just a question for you evolutionists, which of you believe in punctuated equilibrium, and which of you don't, and why or why not?

 

[[email protected]]

i owuld say God's image is Love, Joyy, Peace and all charachtersistics that seperate us from animals that God also has.