The Bible is not infallible!
- Thread starter Basstrap
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
KingPin
The Fly
The large gaps in the often-taught evolutionary tree are too big. There isn't a consistent gradual change, but in fact huge jumps and leaps. Macro evolution can't explain this.
Mathematicians don't believe it because it's statistically impossible for random genetic mutations to occure frequently and perfectly and in a manner that benefits the mutation. The odds against it are astronomical.
Anytime chemists create mutations on a species the mutation turns out to be a large defect. The chemical combinations that make up DNA are set in such a way that any tampering at all causes big problems. Big advancements like are required to support macro-evolution just don't happen.
Physicists will tell you that chaos theory in itself shows that things get worse if left to themselves. This combined with the random nature of the second law of Termodynamics makes macro-evolution laughable.
Paleontologists will tell you that there are big gaps in the fossil record. There are fossils that show gradual micro-evolution of a small kind (slight changes within a species) but then new fossils turn up of species that just appear out of nowhere, with nothing leading to them.
The reason that macro-evolution is still taught is because it would cost insane amounts of money to change the curriculum in all American schools. Evidence was found that disproved evolution over 75 years ago... yet it was locked in a cupboard at the Smithsonian, and only discovered about 15 years ago. Most modern scientific journals admit that evolution as it is most commonly interpreted and taught is completely false.
Mathematicians don't believe it because it's statistically impossible for random genetic mutations to occure frequently and perfectly and in a manner that benefits the mutation. The odds against it are astronomical.
Anytime chemists create mutations on a species the mutation turns out to be a large defect. The chemical combinations that make up DNA are set in such a way that any tampering at all causes big problems. Big advancements like are required to support macro-evolution just don't happen.
Physicists will tell you that chaos theory in itself shows that things get worse if left to themselves. This combined with the random nature of the second law of Termodynamics makes macro-evolution laughable.
Paleontologists will tell you that there are big gaps in the fossil record. There are fossils that show gradual micro-evolution of a small kind (slight changes within a species) but then new fossils turn up of species that just appear out of nowhere, with nothing leading to them.
The reason that macro-evolution is still taught is because it would cost insane amounts of money to change the curriculum in all American schools. Evidence was found that disproved evolution over 75 years ago... yet it was locked in a cupboard at the Smithsonian, and only discovered about 15 years ago. Most modern scientific journals admit that evolution as it is most commonly interpreted and taught is completely false.
Last edited:
KingPin
The Fly
And the schools should teach what we currently know from scientific research. And they should admit that there are many things about the origin of the universe and the origin of life that we simply do not know, and have no natural way of explaining. Scientists have, ever since the discovery of the Big Bang, started to admit that a divine intelligent supernatural force may have been involved.
Ok, this is going a bit off topic . . .
Thanks for the reply King Pin I find myself thinking about big bang/evolution a lot (maybe too much)
One of the first things I learned in science was that theories can be disproved but never proved. The whole idea behind science is that we don?t have all the answers, but we should try to find them. So I don?t see a problem with that we don?t have all the answers from the scientific community(at least that?s the way its supposed to be).
The reason that macro-evolution is still taught is because it would cost insane amounts of money to change the curriculum in all American schools.
So there is a big conspiracy to hide the truth so that American text books don?t need to be changed? Although I will admit that the general population seems rather uniformed about evolution.
Mathematicians don't believe it because it's statistically impossible for random genetic mutations to occure frequently and perfectly and in a manner that benefits the mutation. The odds against it are astronomical.
In order to believe this I would have to see the actual numbers and data ... I find it hard to believe that mathematicians have come up with a completely accurate model for evolution
Anytime chemists create mutations on a species the mutation turns out to be a large defect. The chemical combinations that make up DNA are set in such a way that any tampering at all causes big problems. Big advancements like are required to support macro-evolution just don't happen.
From what I?ve heard DNA is quite flexible (we are even able to swap genes between different species). Different species also share allot of the same DNA which would point to common ancestors.
Physicists will tell you that chaos theory in itself shows that things get worse if left to themselves. This combined with the random nature of the second law of Termodynamics makes macro-evolution laughable.
What does thermodynamics have to do with life and evolution??? The second law of thermodynamics is about the diffusion of energy, it doesn?t apply to matter the same way. Matter doesn?t diffuse randomly just be cause energy does. In fact gravity causes matter to collect forming planets and what not. If we had a unified theory of everything then it would be possible to apply all this theory to everything. But I find it rather funny to laugh at evolution simply because ?things get worse if left to themselves?. Life its self obviously doesn?t just leave things to them selves. Although my room is rather chaotic I?m sure I could do a little experiment to show that life can create order.
Paleontologists will tell you that there are big gaps in the fossil record. There are fossils that show gradual micro-evolution of a small kind (slight changes within a species) but then new fossils turn up of species that just appear out of nowhere, with nothing leading to them.
This is maybe the best evidence against evolution working on a global scale. There most certainly are some interesting things in the fossil record but not everything gets fossilized. We have hardly catalogued the species which currently exist on the earth so these ?missing links? may exist.
Perhaps it is this difference between mico and macro evolution has me confused I?m not sure where the line between the two would be drawn it seems to me like away to say evolution seems to work on a small scale but not on a geological scale.
Even if evolution doesn?t apply on a global time scale that doesn?t show that the Creator messed around with stuff.
I find it much more elegant and uninspiring to have the Creator simply set the rules and go rather than having to muck about after the fact.
Thanks for the reply King Pin I find myself thinking about big bang/evolution a lot (maybe too much)
One of the first things I learned in science was that theories can be disproved but never proved. The whole idea behind science is that we don?t have all the answers, but we should try to find them. So I don?t see a problem with that we don?t have all the answers from the scientific community(at least that?s the way its supposed to be).
The reason that macro-evolution is still taught is because it would cost insane amounts of money to change the curriculum in all American schools.
So there is a big conspiracy to hide the truth so that American text books don?t need to be changed? Although I will admit that the general population seems rather uniformed about evolution.
Mathematicians don't believe it because it's statistically impossible for random genetic mutations to occure frequently and perfectly and in a manner that benefits the mutation. The odds against it are astronomical.
In order to believe this I would have to see the actual numbers and data ... I find it hard to believe that mathematicians have come up with a completely accurate model for evolution
Anytime chemists create mutations on a species the mutation turns out to be a large defect. The chemical combinations that make up DNA are set in such a way that any tampering at all causes big problems. Big advancements like are required to support macro-evolution just don't happen.
From what I?ve heard DNA is quite flexible (we are even able to swap genes between different species). Different species also share allot of the same DNA which would point to common ancestors.
Physicists will tell you that chaos theory in itself shows that things get worse if left to themselves. This combined with the random nature of the second law of Termodynamics makes macro-evolution laughable.
What does thermodynamics have to do with life and evolution??? The second law of thermodynamics is about the diffusion of energy, it doesn?t apply to matter the same way. Matter doesn?t diffuse randomly just be cause energy does. In fact gravity causes matter to collect forming planets and what not. If we had a unified theory of everything then it would be possible to apply all this theory to everything. But I find it rather funny to laugh at evolution simply because ?things get worse if left to themselves?. Life its self obviously doesn?t just leave things to them selves. Although my room is rather chaotic I?m sure I could do a little experiment to show that life can create order.
Paleontologists will tell you that there are big gaps in the fossil record. There are fossils that show gradual micro-evolution of a small kind (slight changes within a species) but then new fossils turn up of species that just appear out of nowhere, with nothing leading to them.
This is maybe the best evidence against evolution working on a global scale. There most certainly are some interesting things in the fossil record but not everything gets fossilized. We have hardly catalogued the species which currently exist on the earth so these ?missing links? may exist.
Perhaps it is this difference between mico and macro evolution has me confused I?m not sure where the line between the two would be drawn it seems to me like away to say evolution seems to work on a small scale but not on a geological scale.
Even if evolution doesn?t apply on a global time scale that doesn?t show that the Creator messed around with stuff.
I find it much more elegant and uninspiring to have the Creator simply set the rules and go rather than having to muck about after the fact.
OP
OP
Basstrap
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2000
- Messages
- 10,726
I would just like to interject here on the topic of random mutations.
I am in 4th year biochemistry and I can back up what Kinpin has said. Mutations of a beneficial nature are almost non-existent, they usually end in severe deformity or death.
Evolutionists would probably say that perhaps one occurred every million or so years and by the process of natural selection this mutation was kept and reproduced.
I don't know really.
I think small changes over time occurred and still occur. People are getting taller, eyes getting bigger, etc. But it will be a cold day in hell before I believe that all I see around is an accident or a fluke. Seriously, how do people even find the will to live on if they believe that we are a mistake.
I heard that on the doiscovery channel before. It said if it wasn't for the meteor that destroyed the dinosaurs humans probably would not exist, for that even allowed them to evolve and become dominant.
So were here by chance..a mistake. They actually used that word..."mistake". When I heard that I actually had to hold back the tears.
How can anyone want to believe were accidents or mistakes?
I am in 4th year biochemistry and I can back up what Kinpin has said. Mutations of a beneficial nature are almost non-existent, they usually end in severe deformity or death.
Evolutionists would probably say that perhaps one occurred every million or so years and by the process of natural selection this mutation was kept and reproduced.
I don't know really.
I think small changes over time occurred and still occur. People are getting taller, eyes getting bigger, etc. But it will be a cold day in hell before I believe that all I see around is an accident or a fluke. Seriously, how do people even find the will to live on if they believe that we are a mistake.
I heard that on the doiscovery channel before. It said if it wasn't for the meteor that destroyed the dinosaurs humans probably would not exist, for that even allowed them to evolve and become dominant.
So were here by chance..a mistake. They actually used that word..."mistake". When I heard that I actually had to hold back the tears.
How can anyone want to believe were accidents or mistakes?
Similar threads
