Maybe you believe that God created the universe. Maybe you don't but if you believe in science then you can't believe in the theory of evolution.
When you see a turtle on a fence post, what's the one thing you know? Somebody put him there.
Read more at: Rightly Concerned
28 comments:
This is the sort of article that makes one stupider for having read it. OK, point by point:
1) The First Law of Thermodynamics: mass/energy can neither be created or destroyed. From this he draws the conclusion that mass/energy was created (?). Wouldn't it make more sense to draw the conclusion that since mass/energy exists, it must always have existed? But, I freely admit that I do not know why anything exists rather than nothing at all, and one person's bullshit theory may be as good as the next's. At any rate, belief in God is not incompatible with belief in evolution.
2) The claim that evolution contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics. NO, it doesn't and even most evolution critics don't use this poor argument. The Second Law applies to a closed system and the Earth is not a closed system; it receives energy from an outside source: the Sun.
3) The supposed lack of transitional fossils. There are transitional fossils, most notably in the cases of birds and horses. Look it up.
3) The claim that genetic mutations are "invariably" harmful to the organism. Usually, yes, but not invariably and the rare beneficial mutation, say one that results in better eyesight is selected for.
Evolution is science. Appeals to the biblical God, as this author makes, is not, it's religion. I hope this clears it up for you.
Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould, said, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology."
You have many Gods. Algore the god of sun.
Darwin the god of evolution.
No matter the evidence presented your faith is unshakeable. Good for you gary. I believe religion is important in society in general. I think you would be better off as a mormon but whatever you choose is fine with me.
I wonder if Gary even realizes that he refuted the theory of darwinism in his very first paragraph, but then like a good sheep went on to defend it anyways.
Baaaa!
Rhino: you didn't present any evidence. Donkey: I don't know what you're talking about, but then neither do you.
As for Stephen Jay Gould, first he said rare, not absent. Second, Gould of course accepts evolution as do virtually all biologists. Third, in his own words: "transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common -- and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim."
thanks for your regoogle gary. Now lets see if you can think for yourself. Please read the following passage.
Gould developed an absurd theory called "punctuated equilibrium," a theory that evolution happened so fast, in such rapid bursts, that it left no trace in the fossil record. Imagine that: the only evidence he has for his theory is the total absence of any evidence whatsoever!
Now riddle me this gary. Assuming that this guy created this theory of punctuated equilibrium. Why would he do that if there was so much evidence in the fossil records?
Part II: why is there so little evidence? Shouldn't the transitional fossils be everywhere? Or are you saying one day we were monkeys and the very next day we were men?
Of course you dont understand.
Gould did not say that evolution happened so fast that it left no trace in the fossil record, so there is little point in commenting further. I would point out though that the rapid evolutionary bursts of which Gould wrote still took place over millions of years.
Donkey: I don't understand what doesn't make sense. How on earth did I disprove evolution?
so if it took place over millions of years as gould says then how is it that we don't have millions of transitional fossils and you keep talking about a bird and a horse?
We have complete dinosaurs all the way back to the flintstone age but nothing that shows Dino becoming what we now know to be a dog?
Forget the ape to man fossil how about the billions of other species of animal on earth? Shouldn't we have more than just a disputed horse and bird?
When you use your own brain doesn't that make you skeptical?
You say in your post that you can't believe in science and evolution. Yet 99.9% of the world's scientists do accept the theory of evolution. There are transitional fossils but I won't bother with links you won't read. Your ignorance is invincible.
once again i'm asking you to use your own brain not 99.9% of the scientists who refuse to believe in a higher power and therefore NEED to have an alternative theory.
It doesn't make you question your faith in the church of Darwin at all that there is almost no or totally no evidence of transitional fossils for any species of animal in the entire world?
No skepticism at all? Just regoogle links to a horse and a bird? That's all you got?
Did the sheep become a man by any chance? baaaaa baaaaa
I'm beginning to think you dont even know what the theory of evolution is, or you didnt bother to read the comment you obviously copy and pasted. I'll give you a moment to google "evolution" and go go back and read your first comment before we continue with your lesson.
Come on Donkey. Read that first comment by gary. he doesn't speak like that.
clearly it was a regoogled comment because he's a regurgitator.
Morons. I read your link and left a comment. I did not use google and did not copy and paste anything. My first comment was entirely mine. You of course think you know more than me, and more than virtually all the world's scientists, including many like Francis Collins who are Christians and do believe in God, which makes you morons.
"Wouldn't it make more sense to draw the conclusion that since mass/energy exists, it must always have existed"
Those are your exact words and that is the polar opposite of evolution.
By your logic, the bird has always been a bird, the horse has always been a horse, and since there are no transitional fossil records to prove otherwise, I agree with your logic and conclude that the theory of evolution is bunk.
Class dismissed.
It does not suprise me that you do not understand logic. You cite a law that says that matter and energy cannot be created, then conclude that matter and energy must have been created.
I don't understand logic?
You defended evolution by making the case that it is scientifically indefensible, and I agree with you that it is indefensible.
You "freely admit that (you) do not know why anything exists rather than nothing at all" and there is no shame in that. Some of the "best" minds in science with billions of dollars of resources and technology working on the LHC have no clue either, but bless their little hearts they keep trying.
Right now, we cant prove if God does or doesn't exist, but we do know for a scientific fact that the "god particle" doesn't, yet you want to take some glorified travel writer from the 1800's word as gospel. We'll fine by us, we respect all religions. Im just glad that you admitted the science doesnt back up you beliefs.
By the way, from your statements it sure does sound a lot like you actually believe in intelligent design, you may want to regoogle what your opinion is.
I did not say that evolution was scientifically indefensible, you did. I merely pointed out the logical inconsistency in saying that matter/energy cannot be created (the First Law), then saying it was. This in no way rules out the evolution of birds or horses or all living things. I cannot prove that God does not exist, but then the burden of proof is on the person making the positive assertion. If I say that I have a pink unicorn in my garage, the burden of proof is on me.
Thats exactly what you said, in fact you just said it again, but you keep believing in that pink unicorn or bird or horse or dead girl or whatever you keep in your garage even though your own words contradict what your own faith.
First of all, how did you know about the dead girl in my garage?
My point, I thought obvious, was that saying there is a god puts the burden of proof on the person making the assertion. You apparently do not understand science or logic.
There is as much proof that God exists than there is that dinos became birds, You just happen to have blind faith in one, while holding the other to a higher standard than you yourself adhere to. Your denial of this basic truth is much like Al Gore's dad's denial of civil rights to blacks.
So gary my only question to you is why don't you just admit that evolution is not science?
Religion is based on faith. If you believe in God you don't need proof. You just believe.
If you believe in science the whole point is you can prove it. And having such a huge sample size (every single species that has ever existed in the entire world) there should be an abundance of proof readily available. Especially with modern technology and tools. However we still have no proof.
Maybe there is no God. Maybe there is some other explanation for how everything came to be, but that explanation is not evolution.
There are transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds. There is NO evidence of God. I will not question your faith, but clearly that faith, not science, is what leads you to dismiss evolution. I'll go with the science (and how can science disprove evolution, as you say, when 99.9% of the scientists are on the other side? And the .1% clearly have religious motivations?
Once again please use your own brain.
evolution has been disproved (disproven?) by the complete lack of evidence.
My argument is not in favor of God or any other intelligent designer, it is against evolution. If there was proof I would believe it. If I believed in God I would say God created evolution. I wouldn't argue against facts.
If the theory of evolution came up yesterday I would give you some time to come up with the proof in the fossil record, however there has been plenty of time and there is no evidence to support evolution.
No proof in the fossil record.... millions of species...millions upon millions of species...no proof.
No matter your motivations be it a belief in God or a need to not believe in God. Whether it be money or fame or whatever it doesn't matter. There is no proof where there should be tons of proof. Scientists should be finding these things every day and yet they have never found any.
Ignoring evidence does not mean that there is no evidence. Start here, you might learn something:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11876&page=1
As for the fossil evidence you are also ignorant of, here's a bit of it:
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm
There's nothing wrong per se with ignorance, in fact recognition of how much you don't know is the beginning of wisdom. But wilful ignorance is something else. Ignoring the evidence in favor of nonsense by creationists and Ann Coulter is just dumb.
Going forward, if you dont have the decency to hot link your sites, I will delete them on site. I'll leave the copy and pasting to you.
Holy shit, you really linked the small horse bigger horse hoax?
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
You really are a sheep.
So if we fast forwarded a trillion years and compared the fossil records, you'd make the argument that a Shetland Pony evolved into a Clydesdale?
Yes you would, moron.
This thread is over.
Post a Comment