Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > A fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 poppata
Joined: 8/6/2017
Msg: 1
A fatal flaw in the Theory of EvolutionPage 1 of 6    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
We are all guessing folks:

A Fatal Flaw in the Theory of Evolution
theresurgent.com Sep 5, 2017 8:58 PM

Life is complex, and complicated. Billions of pieces of information must be organized and properly aligned for even the simplest life form to exist.

In spite of this fact, there are simple truths that are safe to assume.

For example, life cannot evolve until it exists. Before evolution ever became possible, two significant problems had to be solved.

First, this allegedly fine-tuned universe had to have been created from absolutely nothing. Second, the animation of inanimate matter had to occur.

Neither of these is an insignificant problem.

The universe could have been created by some very fortunate accident (good luck), unless it was created on purpose, by a supernatural God.

Science and mathematics can tell us how likely each alternative might be, but it cannot tell us the right answers. We must rely on logic and reason to decide what is most likely true.

Many scientists will almost surely argue that “science” (meaning existential physics, chemistry, and biology) has no relationship to luck, but that simply isn’t true. Science can tell us that the universe and life exist, but it can’t tell us what caused the universe to exist, or how it was created from nothing.

Science can confirm that the universe has not always existed, but it doesn’t really offer a decent explanation for why it exists today. Those are not scientific questions; they are philosophical ones. And they are both crucially important problems that are extremely difficult to solve without any need for divine intervention. In fact, the hypothesis in chemistry known as abiogenesis is the reason that we may safely assume that the origin of new species, without the specific act of a supernatural God, is very unlikely, and virtually impossible.

Biologist Richard Dawkins, famous for writing his book The God Delusion, concedes that abiogenesis is so remarkably improbable we may safely assume that it has only happened once, that inanimate matter became alive.

In an attempt to mitigate the “probability” problem of explaining existence without invoking God, Dawkins made some very interesting claims in his book, such as:

The key difference between the genuinely extravagant God hypothesis and the apparently extravagant multiverse hypothesis is one of statistical improbability. (1)
Once again, simple reasoning reveals the major error in Dawkins’s logic. A hypothesis that relies on a supernatural creator God solves the probability problems of the creation of the universe, the origin of life, and the current diversity of life. The statistical improbability of the multiverse hypothesis theoretically only solves one of the three statistical problems. If anything, the odds against life being spontaneously generated “by accident” even once are absurdly low.

Dawkins also wrote:

Physicists have calculated that, if the laws and constants of physics had been even slightly different, the universe would have developed in such a way that life would have been impossible. Different physicists put it in different ways, but the conclusion is always much the same. Martin Rees, in Just Six Numbers, lists six fundamental constants, which are believed to hold all around the universe. Each of these six numbers is finely tuned in the sense that, I it were slightly different, the universe would be comprehensively different and presumably unfriendly to life. (2)
The evolutionary biologist’s typical argument is, so what? The Big Bang and abiogenesis can both be remarkably improbable events, and it doesn’t matter because each of them only had to happen once, and they both have happened, which makes evolutionary biology possible. They will then usually claim that the evidence for macroevolution is so powerful and ubiquitous that it is literally irrefutable, and an absolute fact.

In another one of his books, Richard Dawkins wrote this:

Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eyewitnesses to the Holocaust. It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips…continue the list as long as desired. (3)
If we are to assume that macroevolution has actually occurred and is true, then we must believe that through the biological mechanisms of sexual (or asexual) reproduction, isolation of a breeding population, and plenty of time, the diversity of life we can easily observe on Earth may be attributed to the accumulated random mutations of a given species over time. To be sure, the average evolutionary biologist might consider my simplified explanation to be egregiously incorrect, but the fact remains that either sexual or asexual reproduction is the only known method by which new organisms are produced. This is an important point to understand. This lecture about the origins of life by Dr. James Tour is more than an hour long, but well worth the time:


However, if you don’t have the time, I can briefly summarize the content this way — organic chemists are not close to explaining how life could have formed by accident or good luck. For the first cell to form, complex compounds such as lipids and enzymes would need to precede them in existence. Much more than the minimal raw ingredients for a cell were necessary to exist prior to the cell becoming able to form.

Remember that we’ve already assumed the Big Bang and abiogenesis could have been successful and lucky. LUCA would “naturally” begin the process of replication via asexual reproduction, which would produce no new variety within the genome. So from where did the new genetic information come? How did it get added to LUCA’s genome? The popular answer from the evolutionary biologist to that question is usually either bacteria or germs. An ERV (endogenous retrovirus).

Here is the fatal flaw in evolution theory: the natural product of abiogenesis could only have been a single-celled organism that reproduced asexually, which means it would have had to clone itself. But from where did the germs or bacteria come? The only logical answer to that question is also the simplest: abiogenesis must have happened at least twice.

Which is mathematically impossible.

1. Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Pages 175-176. New York. Houghton Mifflin. 2008. Print.

2. Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Pages 169-170. New York. Houghton Mifflin. 2008. Print.

3. Dawkins, Richard. The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Page 8. New York. Free Press. 2009. Print.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 2
view profile
History
A fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 9/7/2017 2:02:08 AM
Andyaa is coorect, but I want to add a bit as well.


Here is the fatal flaw in evolution theory: the natural product of abiogenesis could only have been a single-celled organism that reproduced asexually, which means it would have had to clone itself. But from where did the germs or bacteria come? The only logical answer to that question is also the simplest: abiogenesis must have happened at least twice.

Which is mathematically impossible.


This isn't just "god of the gaps," it's nonsense masquerading as confidence. There is zero proof that "the natural product of abiogenesis could only have been a single-celled organism." Zero. In fact, it is an assumption based entirely on the belief that all life is due only to something magic, which is beyond the physical. And there is no proof of that. There can't be, because magic is by definition unprovable.

If anything, that is the fatal flaw in your "fatal flaw" argument.
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 3
view profile
History
A fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 9/7/2017 4:06:53 AM

Here is the fatal flaw in evolution theory: the natural product of abiogenesis could only have been a single-celled organism that reproduced asexually, which means it would have had to clone itself. But from where did the germs or bacteria come? The only logical answer to that question is also the simplest: abiogenesis must have happened at least twice.

Bacteria ARE "single-celled organisms that reproduce asexually". So... someone should let the author know their fatal flaw is actually a feature.

Remember that we’ve already assumed the Big Bang and abiogenesis could have been successful and lucky. LUCA would “naturally” begin the process of replication via asexual reproduction, which would produce no new variety within the genome. So from where did the new genetic information come?

There is a thing called 'random mutation' too. And LUCA is the last common ancestor, not the first life form.

And I really can't be bothered proof-reading the whole thing.

To be fair, it was written without obfuscation. So I give them some points for that honesty and the effort to consider what Dawkins had said, even if they do need to do some more background reading and possibly to be more honest with themselves.
 Darwin1971
Joined: 1/31/2013
Msg: 4
view profile
History
A fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 9/11/2017 3:37:59 PM
OP What ever makes you sleep better. Because you are going to a better place I am sure. oh wait did you pick the right religion(god) over 4,000 to choose from you know?

Posting these talking points you have so carefully copied and pasted is not giving you a pass to heaven try living the life by example. History has shown that forcing your views and trying to convert people that don't want to be converted doesn't work out well.

Please tell me you do think there is some fatal flaws in a lot of beliefs?

Science isn't asking you to believe it's asking you to ask so many questions and find answers or ideas that eventually more and more truth will be learned. The time/distance scales we are talking about are .wow!!! our own galaxy the milky way... If you turned on a flashlight at the edge of it and shined it to the other side it would take 100,000 years for that light to get to the other side. THAT'S BIG and we are just one of billions of galaxies. The galaxy Andromeda a short 2.2 million light years away. Another words the things you see when you look at Andromeda happened 2.2 million years ago.

But I suppose you don't think math/science is right to be able to say that?


Here is the fatal flaw in evolution theory: the natural product of abiogenesis could only have been a single-celled organism that reproduced asexually, which means it would have had to clone itself. But from where did the germs or bacteria come? The only logical answer to that question is also the simplest: abiogenesis must have happened at least twice.


As bad and ignorant as this statement is let me put this into simple terms. I am here therefore It must be true that within the billions of years our current state universe has been around in its ever changing form that I came to be. Even if by accident.
No one created god he/she/it has always been around you would say right? Then is it not possible for the universe(matter) to have always existed maybe just in many forms and states?
 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 5
A fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 9/11/2017 7:05:14 PM
@ OP


First, this allegedly fine-tuned universe had to have been created from absolutely nothing.


you just stepped on a slippery slope with this ^ one.
In truth, nobody knows what absolute nothingness is...we know what nothing is in the human sense but this is far different than what you are alluding to.

I've heard some cosmologists say that there is no such thing as "nothingness"....meaning that there was always something there.....perhaps in a form that we cannot begin to perceive; but somehow was transformed into the form we know and live in (at time =0) as defined by the "big bang".

thus, the question is...why should there be anything at all!....regardless of whether or not you have life in any given universe(or multiverse).............which is why I feel that there is a "creatorship" of sorts behind it all...which in my view, would not conform to any of what most Religions have described "it' to be. Heck, we could all be SIMs in a computer program for all we know, but even so, I think that there has to be an entity of sorts sitting behind the computer watching or at least cognizant that we are there!


Second, the animation of inanimate matter had to occur.


The fundamental constants endow matter with this "potential"...under the right circumstances of course, so the question is, were these constants pre-determined....or were they created haphazardly, and luckily all "6 numbers came out"...on our winning ticket?........we cannot know this!


For the first cell to form, complex compounds such as lipids and enzymes would need to precede them in existence.


I doubt this^...since complex molecules like enzymes, usually require a genetic blue print for them to be synthesized. In all likelyhood, the so-called "first cell" is nothing like we imagine it to be, and probably originated in a liquidy environment with the right ingredients that they were at "one" with...and some haphazardly got more complex as they grew in size. Its doubtful that such a primitive organism had the capacity to self divide at first. Once an organism develops the ability to reproduce asexually, they will already have had a very complex genome...one that allowed for mutations to occur in the replication process...assuring a good chance of survival of future generations.

IMO, there were probably multiple types of primordial complexes that were simultaneously forming in a given milieu...some of these "complexes" may have fused (at random) which might have had a synergistic effect that was mutually beneficial...in that it produced a more successful existence...but some such "fusions" might not have, and thus were "selected out".
 Inicia
Joined: 4/12/2015
Msg: 6
A fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 9/12/2017 10:31:45 AM
There is a difference in truth and fact- rain is a truth, water falling from sky is more factual- but does contain truth. and understand faith, is no more illogical, or unreasonable then continually searching for some "truth" we can prove as fact. Discernment is a real human ability and skill, yet centers from personal experience. Each of us is capable of discerning personal truths-- i do also take umbrage when someone claims one truth for all especially as a fact big problem for me- it is highly inflammatory- provoking chasms in human relations..

witnesses swear to tell truth- yet reported facts, are often inconsistent and revealed as such- but they did tell their truth in most cases. sure there are liars. Native philosophy- at least 360 degrees of truth- each witness to an event or situation or those experiencing situation, have personal perceptions, and not all will be contingent or in agreement. Accepting one's own strengths, weaknesses, and knowledge does not include debasing other's strengths, weaknesses and knowledge.


n truth, nobody knows what absolute nothingness is...we know what nothing is in the human sense
IMO this is both factual as well as truthful..and that is my personal discernment.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 7
view profile
History
A fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 9/26/2017 1:57:01 AM
Evolution in the year 2017 is still just a hope for some folks, nothing more.
 poppata
Joined: 8/6/2017
Msg: 8
A fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 9/26/2017 9:00:52 AM
No..evolution is a fact... but evolution does not explain life itself, nor in my opinion, does it explain the huge variation in different types of life or even the complexity of life, as in evidenced by our brain.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 9
view profile
History
A fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 9/26/2017 7:33:12 PM
OK, one, just one fact, and we'll deal with it it.
Science accepts that there are no smoking guns in favour of evolution.
So let's go from there.
 poppata
Joined: 8/6/2017
Msg: 10
A fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 9/27/2017 8:14:49 AM
^^^^ not sure what you are getting at..... there is plenty of proof of evolution...but whether evolution accounts for life or the variation of life on earth is another question.
 poppata
Joined: 8/6/2017
Msg: 11
A fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 9/28/2017 1:21:13 PM
^^^^ Its not MY theory... simply copied and pasted.. but that begs the point. I believe in Evolution... I do not believe however that Evolution is the sole answer for life on earth, the tremendous variation of life, nor the complexity of certain life. You can wax on all you want about mutations, etc..... but can that be the cause of the Human mind, and the creation of a gorgeous blue eyed woman to fit perfectly with a brown eyed man? I have trouble accepting it. There are lots of traits in complex animals that were not mandatory for life to evolve.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 12
view profile
History
A fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 10/19/2017 9:50:22 PM
Yeah, andyea, we've already settled this in the past.
There are no smoking guns for evolution.
Thats my only point.....

PS. Science has no clue how evolution works.
Don't bother quoting low grade science material.
And,
Out of the 7 plus billion peeps that exist, I really don't care what anyone thinks,
BUT,
I'll gladly try to give another opinion to a favorite bit of evolutionary evidence.
Only one though, like you couldn't check it out for yourself.
But,
I know why you won't.
 nba24
Joined: 4/11/2013
Msg: 13
view profile
History
A fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 10/20/2017 12:20:08 AM

I do believe that evolution is just a big fat lie from the devil to try to disprove the need for a god but I also don't think we can ever prove that there is a or is not a god. I think it is much easier to have faith that there is a god/creature then that ever thing just happened by some accident. Ever thing is so darn complex and I think there are signs of god ever where. Heck a lot of stuff from revaluation is going on now in the world. More earthquakes then ever before, more people turning a way from god and hating each other, weather patterns like never before in recorded history etc. The thing with evolution is that if Apes like turned into humans or something then why are there still Apes around? Whey didn't all of them like go away? I do believe that animals can adapted/change like for example look at how many different species of dog there are but guess what they are still a dog. Its one thing for a creature to change/adapted but it is like another thing for a create to completely change there species.
 norwegianguy456
Joined: 6/11/2015
Msg: 14
view profile
History
A fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 10/21/2017 12:21:00 PM

Life is complex, and complicated. Billions of pieces of information must be organized and properly aligned for even the simplest life form to exist.

Actually, no. This culturally-right-wing propaganda piece (like many) refuses to be intellectually honest due to their cultural & idealogical loyalty. A life form, like bacteria or humans, doesn't require billions and billions of mechanical pieces spontaneously arising randomly. The theory of evolution doesn't propose that nor require that. Even those who in an Honest fashion question biological evolution, realize that that's not the case and this argument Falls Flat and makes one look stupid or horribly dishonest (outside their circle). It's about change, not creation.

First, this allegedly fine-tuned universe had to have been created from absolutely nothing. Second, the animation of inanimate matter had to occur.

The creation of the universe / existence has NOTHING to do with biological evolution. At. All. It's a red-herring. You mine as well be talking about college football in it. I agree with the second point -- if you mean life forms had to first occur out of non-life matter for life to spawn, at some point -- yes. BUT, even if the 1st original life forms were created by bearded guy in the sky ("bippity boppity boo!") -- that still doesn't defeat the theory of Evolution (change). Evolution is NOT about how life came into being.

organic chemists are not close to explaining how life could have formed by accident or good luck.

You're focused on the original single-cell organisms coming into being (here and other places) -- and the mystery of going from non-life to life. There's actually some hypotheses about this that they research, and some day we will figure it out ("Don't play god, man!"). You don't want it to be true, just admit it to yourself. :)

There are chemical compounds that are not life forms that do in certain environments that "breed" creating copies of itself. That's been observed. We're still learning. I'm assuming with AI in the not too distant future, we'll figure out how primitive single-celled life forms can spawn, given the right environments.

Even though this has NOTHING to do with biological Evolution (change) -- the creation of single celled organisms is not about random luck like a zillion tinker toys all over the floor, with winds blowing coming to form a castle. That's NOT it at all, man. You're making yourself look silly if you buy into that. It's so laughable -- yet some people believe that argument. Why? Because they Don't Want To Believe in Biological Evolution or anything related to it. Even though the Bible is not a biology or astronomy textbook, nor even intended to be, people don't want more info behind the scenes taking away the "magic" of the unknowns from thousands of years past, as it takes away from their culture.

The universe ITSELF has laws embedded, hence trends. Hence pyramids on Mars due to the way nature works in and of itself (no aliens required). You'll find ORDER out of some things in a sea of chaos, not out of "good luck", but the Universe Itself. You could use this as backing that Behind The Scenes, a God created THIS universe so it Would spawn certain trends/order to spawn life and the like. But aside from that, you don't need a God with a magic wand changing things as we go or making things appear after the Universe got started already, to see what we have today.
 2plunk
Joined: 10/1/2016
Msg: 15
view profile
History
A fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 10/21/2017 9:04:12 PM

First, this allegedly fine-tuned universe had to have been created from ‘absolutely nothing’. Second, the animation of inanimate matter had to occur.


imo— It’s possible it’s a fractal with no beginning or end.

‘animation of inanimate matter;
What if that animation occurs from the most fundamental and simplest law of nature.
If two particulars attract—you have a trinity, 1+ 1 = 3
You have the original matter plus the impact energy –resulting in a new state. Neither being what they once were.
I think this is happening everywhere—and each time the new state, being more complex than the last, lends itself to an exponential growth towards a more complex state of matter.

Interesting example;

One of the most complex of all inanimate matter is-- sand..
Throw in some water, a bit of heat—all kinds of reactions are possible.
Will there be little Frankenstein’s—I doubt it—
But there just might be a precursor to an animate object.


The problem is where do we draw the line as to, what we consider to be, life--

The problem with evolution is, it’s too ego eccentric—

It’s not the evolution of HUMANS—Animals—plants—

It’s the evolution of matter—
And it doesn’t give a hoot, as to, who we are—its only fundamental function is to become more complex.
We just happen to be the most complex evolution of earthly matter –to date..


The statistical improbability of the multiverse hypothesis theoretically only solves one of the three statistical problems. If anything, the odds against life being spontaneously generated “by accident” even once are absurdly low.


I think this is happening everywhere—all the time, under every nook and cranny with a huge diversity of possible complexities, and some of those complexities-- we will consider animent –

And in some cases very very animate !!! lol..
 Inicia
Joined: 4/12/2015
Msg: 16
A fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 10/23/2017 6:49:37 AM
^Nice to see pi thinking instead of linear logic. lol very refreshing.

I have no problem with many theories in evolution- it can be very egocentric-though.

I do take umbrage with the arguments and debates centered as faith vs science
Embracing institutions that form cultures/ civilizations is extremely necessary. We must abandon
the mind set; whereupon, factions feel a need to denigrate /degrade another philosophy. This approach creates debate rather than discourse- any party of debate or argument becomes more entrenched in original stance, rather than trying to understand opposing philosophies and incorporate valuable ideas and educational contributions.

Integral in protecting the tenuous life and environment on earth-is embracing and discussing contributions of all philosophies.

Both science and faith/religious ideologies have flaws- yet both have contributed greatly to the operation of civilizations. Devaluing and discounting either as nonsense, ridiculous or worthless does not advance unity it only separates and creates arguments. This is a mentality that encourages nation/state wars, terrorism, civil uprisings etc : one nation/faction devalues and denigrates another -visa versa and attempts of physical force are utilized to control one another.
 tablata
Joined: 8/21/2017
Msg: 17
A fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 10/23/2017 8:46:40 AM
All of the scientific arguments explain neither life nor the existence of the Universe. Science has come a long way. We know a lot more now than we knew so long ago. But there are now an estimated 2 trillion galaxies with a number of stars in a number too large to write, and each star potentially having a planet or planets orbiting it. Lets face it, the more we know and learn, the more we learn we don't know. Our knowledge is simply microscopic to what is knowable out there. We have no way of knowing if there is a God responsible for life on earth or not. Given the huge size of this Universe, let alone the multi-universe scheme, which many physics believe in, the existence of beings of infinite knowledge and power may be almost a given. From my point of view.... this didn't just all happen randomly...no way...no day. None of us know, not even those deeply steeped in the knowledge and understanding of theoretical physics.
 norwegianguy456
Joined: 6/11/2015
Msg: 18
view profile
History
A fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 10/23/2017 12:18:44 PM

Embracing institutions that form cultures/ civilizations is extremely necessary. We must abandon the mind set; whereupon, factions feel a need to denigrate /degrade another philosophy.

Well, if one's bad -- it should be denigrated, sorry. If someone thinks the earth is only 10,000 years old and perpetuate blatantly false things to uphold something taken literally from a middle eastern religious book thousands of years old -- when it's Verified Fact far more than many verdicts in court rooms that the earth is Billions of years old -- yeah, you destroy it. If you don't when it comes to false claims, religious or not, then "anything can be true if you believe".

So no, nothing religious or political gets a pass, nor should. Good news is, there's more people who believe in a God + the fact of biological evolution than those who are atheistic. It's just a modern-day version of the earth not being the center of the universe. Some people can't grasp it. Should we not shoot down one's silly religious beliefs if part of it is that the earth is the center of the universe? Or that it's flat (that's actually making a small comeback; shows how stupid people can be)? Of course. Popularity by the masses doesn't = truth; growing popularity doesn't mean there's something more to it than that.

All of the scientific arguments explain neither life nor the existence of the Universe.

There's plenty of scientific arguments that explain life -- of course! :) And many scientific arguments -- much in the hypothetical realm -- about the existence of the universe.

But there are now an estimated 2 trillion galaxies with a number of stars in a number too large to write, and each star potentially having a planet or planets orbiting it. Lets face it, the more we know and learn, the more we learn we don't know. Our knowledge is simply microscopic to what is knowable out there. We have no way of knowing if there is a God responsible for life on earth or not.

I agree.

From my point of view.... this didn't just all happen randomly...no way...no day.

Depends what you mean by random, tho. Everything happens for a reason -- yes. It's called cause & effect. You narrow things down enough, each individual thing happening isn't random. But zooming out -- it does. Example: If I knock my coffee cup off my table right now accidently, it wasn't random. It wasn't a roll of the dice. In this instance, it was me scooting my chair in swiftly, my elbow jutting out, and knocking into the cup. There was no dice rolled to make me fling it, like I have something like Turrets where my hands/arms/elbows will randomly fling around. So it wasn't random from this perspective. However, zooming out -- looking at all the days I sit at a table with a computer & coffee mug resting on the table... it some sense there's some chance -- a very very small one -- that I'll knock it over. It's "random" when that will happen, but the act of it isn't random. In the end, in some sense it's random -- but really, it's not.

So yeah, it applies to stuff happening in the universe too all around. The universe coming into being -- whether there's a bearded man in the sky going "boo-ya! let there be light!" or not -- it's not random.
 tablata
Joined: 8/21/2017
Msg: 19
A fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 10/23/2017 3:42:33 PM
^^^ like most people you keep trying to objectify God, and then reject the concept of this objectified God being the creator of the Universe. Perhaps there is no God. Perhaps there is. Calling him a bearded man or a creation of religion has no bearing on the issue or not of his existence. The bottom line is we are here, complex, sentient beings. If you want to put that off on "evolution"... your right..me I think there has to be more. In the end, we are either a creation of randomness or we are a creation of design. That is really the only two possibilities. Personally, I see virtually no likelihood a sentient human arising out of some sort of primordial soup . . . with all of our attributes, based on ramdom events or the natural flow of biological events. Our being here is not the natural course of evolution. A flowing river may well create a canyon given enough time, but its not going to create a lion.
 norwegianguy456
Joined: 6/11/2015
Msg: 20
view profile
History
A fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 10/23/2017 5:38:00 PM

like most people you keep trying to objectify God, and then reject the concept of this objectified God being the creator of the Universe.

You're misreading what I'm writing. My last sentence was pointing out that from the most extreme fairy-tale version of God (bearded one in sky saying let there be light) -- all the way to no god -- that, no matter what, it's not random. Some people believe in certain versions of God -- I'm just using them as examples there.

Calling him a bearded man

I wasn't. Again, you were misinterpreting what I was saying. :)

or a creation of religion has no bearing on the issue or not of his existence

I never implied that.

The bottom line is we are here, complex, sentient beings. If you want to put that off on "evolution"... your right..me I think there has to be more.

So you deny biological evolution? All evolution means is Change. So you think we humans appeared out of thin air -- from a seemingly magic force from the universe, not biologically evolved over a massive amount of time from other primates -- in which we have found bones of, like between other species?

either a creation of randomness or we are a creation of design. That is really the only two possibilities.

Biological evolution isn't random, though. :) So no, there aren't just those two possibilities.
 nba24
Joined: 4/11/2013
Msg: 21
view profile
History
A fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 10/24/2017 1:19:59 AM




I like sciences my self and I am not saying that sciences as a whole is trying to disprove god just that I think evolution doesn't have a lot of prof and I believe we are way off when it comes to how old things are. When I say I see signs ever where there are so many. All the talk about war and terrorism up in till 9/11 I had never even heard the word terrorism now I hear about it all the time. Yeah sure part of that was I was young back when 9/11 happened but still I don't even watch the news has all it does is piss me off and yet I still hear a lot about war and terrorism like never before. The weather has never been like this before either. Now days its like you regularly go from like 50-80 degree in just a day or so. Like 2 days ago here for example it was 50 and today it was 80 a 30 degree change in just a few days that kind of thing used to be ware now its happing like all the time ever where. You used to have a more gradual increases in the temp or decrees. Heck in just the last like 10 years world wide we have had the 2 warmest driest years and also 2 of the coldest wettest years on recorded. Then you like look at all the Hurricanes that have been happing this year. Not sure about how many earth quakes happened ever year on average but I know we have been getting more and more big ones now for sure. If you look at the top 20 strongest earthqukes to be recorded 7 of the 20 have happened since just 2000 and 3 from 2010 to now and that dosnt even included how we have had several in just the last few years that are not top 20 but still pretty bad like the 8 or so that Mexico had this year and I think I remember Chill having like a 8 or something in the last 5 years or so.

More people turning away from god is also another sign and even if you say its because people are more educated I think it is harder to believe that ever thing was just some crazy accident rather then having someone who desized it. Ever thing is just to perfect like for example the earth rotates at like a 11.5 degree angle or something like that. If it was at like a 13 degree angle it would cause problems so if it was a accident why did it not like go at any other angle? I do believe in the bible but even if someone dosnt of course there is a difference between not beliving in a god/creature at all and thinking ever thing just happened or beliving in a god/creature but not beliving in the bible.

You say that we share a common ancestry with ever living thing but could that just be has simple has because we all come from god? About the dog what's to say that some animals just simple come later in time and didn't like evoul from some other animal? Maybe its obvious to you but to me its obvious has not and day that we where created by god. People talk about Aliens all the time and I am 100% convinced they are just fallen angles or demons. With how many people have said they have seen Aliens there has got to be something to it but if they are really so advanced why have they not already killed us yet or taken us over or something? The fact they say they are here to help is just demons trying to get man to believe that they can help us and so we don't need a god and also them saying they created use is also just a way to try to make it so we don't need a god. Also with there being like millions or planets or so and with what people have said about how there must be life out there how do we know that there is no life out there and that god didn't just create planets and space and star so we would have something to look at and wonder about and to try to figure out about has it is a very human natural thing to want to discover stuff?

The fossils I have a really hard time believing they are has old has what we are told. Yes I know stuff can like get frozen in ice and that can keep it preserved for example but if any fossils are truly like 100 million years old I am sure they would have decomposed by now. That is a long time for any thing to last. With the Apes thing still if people are really just apes I don't see why there would be any Apes left any more it should just be humans.
 Inicia
Joined: 4/12/2015
Msg: 22
A fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 10/24/2017 11:04:51 AM
^A few Ideas
1)The bible was written after language was created- it contains written versions of oral tradition. In studying it you can understand how misconceptions of time occurred. The first six days reported in bible are human terms of time for the history they could not comprehend- as there were no humans to formulate a concept of eras (days, nights seasons, years etc) even biblical some form of man and woman existed prior to adam and eve- the two stories of created humans exist contextually in biblical scripture.

Further more moon, sun, stars do not happen until fourth day- these are specifically what humans utilize to designate time-and can only be passed down orally after humans existed: then spoke language, and then created an understanding of time, then written language. Understand that human symbolic version of time only existed two biblical days prior to human existence.

2)A god-life force is omnipresent our human understanding of time and timelines etc is extremely limited by our own human logic . So believing a rock can present data from a million years ago is totally congruent with the belief that Monotheistic Abrahamic religion is based on the cornerstone, or rock containing the tree of life-Jesus/God only to Judaic and Islamic religions And only God -
To many Abrahamic monotheistic religions-these facts are not incongru0us with one another, kabbalah mysticism of Judaic people have an understanding of creation very congruent with evolution. No one need dispose of a belief in God to accept certain facts, truth of faith is not a fact- we can not touch faith pull it out and examine it- therefor it is intangible-we can touch rocks or fossils these are factual-we can study examine and determine within our knowledge system certain things.


3)Believing or having faith does not need to instill disbelief or misunderstanding of scientific uncoverings- yet the need to value and incorporate- Christianity demands an approach of wisdom " do not shut an eye or ear to see or hear"- "all is good" and created for human enlightenment"-yet utilizing faith to maintain ignorance and judgement is not considered a valuable righteous biblical principle. Our brains are fabulous-knowledge is advancing- revelations clearly explains knowledge will run to and fro it does not say ignorance is running to and fro -

We are required to utilize discernment, animals are not corrupt beings, humans are we see and do corrupt things. We have a choice to find good and bad-Some faithful people search for disjuncture, and offense claiming certain things are inherently bad"untrue"sic "evil" sic, whereas finding the good and value and truth of these items can be necessary to expose a heart centered in truth and wisdom.

Historically patterns of war and violence have been present in all human civilization (no worse now than ever) and climate or weather stability has been very unstable for earth's history- the current 10000 yrs of stability has been a gift and blessing- allowing human civilization to advance.

4)We are divergent from Homonoids -we are Homo Sapiens. when a species diverges- the species of origin does not cease to exist until it is no longer capable of surviving the elements of its environment- whatever those elements may be- lack of food supply-hostile predators etc.. Currently all other homonoids are rare or endangered- so maybe in another 100-1000yrs your belief that our divergence need be to the genocide of ancestors will be a truth.
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 23
view profile
History
A fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 10/25/2017 2:36:33 AM

The fossils I have a really hard time believing they are has old has what we are told. Yes I know stuff can like get frozen in ice and that can keep it preserved for example but if any fossils are truly like 100 million years old I am sure they would have decomposed by now. That is a long time for any thing to last.

You should look up the details on this because your skepticism is valid and fossils are awesome. If they were merely preserved organic matter you would have a point... but you're missing a vital piece of the puzzle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil#Fossilization_processes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrifaction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permineralization
 nba24
Joined: 4/11/2013
Msg: 24
view profile
History
A fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 10/27/2017 12:49:22 AM
Ok I will look at that stuff some later but I also have heard there has been some like dinosare skin found with fossils to or something and that is like organic matter right?
 2plunk
Joined: 10/1/2016
Msg: 25
view profile
History
A fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution
Posted: 11/1/2017 6:46:43 PM
I still believe that the division between life and solid mater is the problem with evolution.
If we confine our logic to animation there needs to be a division from inanimate.

If we consider that the division could be Pi.
We’re left with a new perspective.

Total digression
What if the,, 1+1 = 3 / trinity-- is represented by the endless non-repetition of Pi.

I don’t see God and Evolution as combatants—
the time scale is a little screwed up.
We’ll get that all sorted –-
soon as we figure out -
what time is..
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > A fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution