Why the theory of evolution is a fraud

[blackbird]

This topic is a bit difficult to sum up in a few sentences because of its nature.  It does require some time reading and studying the reasons why the theory of evolution is false.

But just to summarize very briefly:

1. The principle of irreducible complexity is a principle which says something extremely complex could not come about by purely random chance processes, which is what part of the theory of evolution claims.  The eye for instance is so complex and has amazing abilities.  It could not have come about without an intelligent designer.  Many scientists have accepted this fact and have rejected the theory of evolution on that basis.

2.  The evidence that all species of life evolved is not in the fossil record.  Many people thought when they found some bits and pieces that they had found proof of prehistoric man or some ape man, but many of those findings have later been proven to be false.  One case was a tooth was found and from that paleontologists surmised what the skull must have been and from that what the rest of the body was.  Then they surmised how he lived and on and on.  It was later discovered that it was not a human or prehistoric man's tooth at all.  It was a pig's tooth.  This kind of thing has happened repeatedly in history.

3.  A mathematician-professor, Philip Stott, who is a very knowledgeable speaker on the subject has written a lot of material refuting the theory of evolution and the old earth claims.  As a mathematician, he concludes there is not enough time in the claimed age of the universe for atoms, molecules, and the basic building blocks of life to come together by random chance to create life and evolve.  The law of probability is against it happening.

But for extensive details and explanations on this there are two websites that have countless articles and videos:

Scripture & Science HOME | Reformation International College (refcm.org)

Home - creation.com

Edited March 24 by blackbird

[Yakuda]

On 3/24/2024 at 3:14 PM, blackbird said:

This topic is a bit difficult to sum up in a few sentences because of its nature.  It does require some time reading and studying the reasons why the theory of evolution is false.

But just to summarize very briefly:

1. The principle of irreducible complexity is a principle which says something extremely complex could not come about by purely random chance processes, which is what part of the theory of evolution claims.  The eye for instance is so complex and has amazing abilities.  It could not have come about without an intelligent designer.  Many scientists have accepted this fact and have rejected the theory of evolution on that basis.

2.  The evidence that all species of life evolved is not in the fossil record.  Many people thought when they found some bits and pieces that they had found proof of prehistoric man or some ape man, but many of those findings have later been proven to be false.  One case was a tooth was found and from that paleontologists surmised what the skull must have been and from that what the rest of the body was.  Then they surmised how he lived and on and on.  It was later discovered that it was not a human or prehistoric man's tooth at all.  It was a pig's tooth.  This kind of thing has happened repeatedly in history.

3.  A mathematician-professor, Philip Stott, who is a very knowledgeable speaker on the subject has written a lot of material refuting the theory of evolution and the old earth claims.  As a mathematician, he concludes there is not enough time in the claimed age of the universe for atoms, molecules, and the basic building blocks of life to come together by random chance to create life and evolve.  The law of probability is against it happening.

But for extensive details and explanations on this there are two websites that have countless articles and videos:

Scripture & Science HOME | Reformation International College (refcm.org)

Home - creation.com

Good to see you're finally making some sense. The reformation college thing though is a bit sketch. 

[Black Dog]

On 3/24/2024 at 1:14 PM, blackbird said:

This topic is a bit difficult to sum up in a few sentences because of its nature.  It does require some time reading and studying the reasons why the theory of evolution is false.

But just to summarize very briefly:

1. The principle of irreducible complexity is a principle which says something extremely complex could not come about by purely random chance processes, which is what part of the theory of evolution claims.  The eye for instance is so complex and has amazing abilities.  It could not have come about without an intelligent designer.  Many scientists have accepted this fact and have rejected the theory of evolution on that basis.

The "principle of irreducible complexity" is not a real scientific principle, it is an assertion that was literally invented to support the so-called "intelligent design" hypothesis and exists in no other field. In other words it's an assumption created to support a pre-existing conclusion, not an evidence-based hypothesis. There's absolutely no reason to assume complex things cannot form naturally.

Quote

 The evidence that all species of life evolved is not in the fossil record. 

There's is copious fossil evidence for evolution. More importantly, there's no fossil record supporting creation because if that were real, we would expect to find fossils or other evidence of modern humans and other contemporary fauna deep within the fossil record, but no such evidence has been found.

Quote

A mathematician-professor, Philip Stott, who is a very knowledgeable speaker on the subject has written a lot of material refuting the theory of evolution and the old earth claims.  

 

This guy (who as far as I can determine is neither mathematician nor professor at least at a real academic institution) also believes that the universe revolves around the earth lol.

 

[eyeball]

On 3/24/2024 at 12:14 PM, blackbird said:

This topic is a bit difficult to sum up in a few sentences because of its nature. 

The thread's title eliminates any need to even think about the topic.

[blackbird]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The thread's title eliminates any need to even think about the topic.

Why?  The theory of evolution has been debunked as a fraud.  If you think it hasn't been debunked, give the proof.  Prove evolution is a fact.  You are free to do so, but we know you can't.  So your only solution is to dismiss it with a trite, meaningless comment.  You probably know nothing at all about it.

Edited March 27 by blackbird

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

Why?

Because theories are not frauds they're explanations that compete with other theories for things.

Fraud and theory are not even synonymous with one another.

[blackbird]

37 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Because theories are not frauds they're explanations that compete with other theories for things.

Fraud and theory are not even synonymous with one another.

Except some theories are phony.  

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

Except some theories are phony.

You're trying to pin something on the word theory itself to cancel it somehow. It's just a thing, it's what people do with it that matters.

Phoney people may posit a theory with made up facts and baseless assumptions but usually unsuccessfully. When they are successful its usually the fault of the people that accept it.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

You're trying to pin something on the word theory itself to cancel it somehow. It's just a thing, it's what people do with it that matters.

Phoney people may posit a theory with made up facts and baseless assumptions but usually unsuccessfully. When they are successful its usually the fault of the people that accept it.

The theory of evolution has had earth-shattering impacts over the last approximate 165 years.  It has been put in school curriculums and used to brainwash the population and turn them against God and Christianity.  I could not think of something which has had a more negative influence on the world.  It is a major tool of atheists and probably Communists.

" Also called Darwinian theory, it originally included the broad concepts of transmutation of species or of evolution which gained general scientific acceptance after Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859,"

Darwinism - Wikipedia

Probably most scientists, who have not really studied the subject in any depth, agree with it.  But there are scientists who have rejected it.  Still, education systems continue to teach it as if it were fact.  

The teaching of evolution theory shapes students’ beliefs and choices | CEPR

About two-thirds of Americans believe in the theory of evolution to some degree.

British Columbia is the only jurisdiction to have an explicit policy banning creationist instruction--

--bchumanist.ca   
it seems B.C. has the most anti-Christian education system around.

B.C. also has some of the worst drug overdose death rates in the country and has become quite a Socialist province.

Edited March 28 by blackbird

[eyeball]

32 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Still, education systems continue to teach it as if it were fact.  

As I've said before, they teach it because it's a superior theory that's been able to outcompete any other for 165 years now.

You're free to mount your challenge. Good luck.

Have you tried developing a theory that says religious belief is a better foundation for society than science?

 

Edited March 28 by eyeball

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

As I've said before, they teach it because it's a superior theory that's been able to outcompete any other for 165 years now.

No, I don't think it is a superior theory.  You have not studied the subject.

The reason it has been widely accepted is because most people are secular humanists in the western world.

The government and education systems are full of secular humanists.

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Have you tried developing a theory that says religious belief is a better foundation for society than science?

I don't need to develop any theory.  To begin with most of the world's religions are false religions.

Interestingly the Bible has been the most opposed book among all the religion's holy books or writings.  It was fanatically fought against down through history. It was banned by the Roman Empire for centuries.  It was even forbidden to be possessed by a lay person in the Catholic Church for centuries.  Many people willingly gave their lives to defend it.  It is probably the most sold book in history.  There are countless people who can testify how it changed their lives.

The Bible account of creation is the only account that makes rational sense.  There are a number of reasons which I already stated.

One important reason is the subject of irreducible complexity.  There are things in life forms such such as the human eye that could not have come about by evolution because the complexity of the human eye is such that it required an intelligent designer.  The same principle applies to countless things.

The bottom line is faith based on reason points to an intelligent designer, not random chance processes as in the theory of evolution.  I am aware that is not the popular opinion in society.

Another theory which is more speculation is the Big Bang Theory.  There is absolutely no proof to support the Big Bang theory.

 

Edited March 28 by blackbird

[eyeball]

8 minutes ago, blackbird said:

No, I don't think it is a superior theory.

Yes I know you don't and because the vast vast majority of education systems around the world do, your theory, whatever it is, is not the one that gets taught.

12 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You have not studied the subject.

I don't have to study it to get it. The fact so many scientists who study evolution still maintain natural selection is the best theory for explaining the origin and diversity of species it makes it easier to believe the theory is sound.

19 minutes ago, blackbird said:

There is absolutely no proof to support the Big Bang theory.

There is however a lot of evidence that supports the theory. Much if it very testable and the entire body of knowledge amassed to date is open to anyone to add weight to or upend.

[blackbird]

5 hours ago, eyeball said:

 

 

 

5 hours ago, eyeball said:

I don't have to study it to get it. The fact so many scientists who study evolution still maintain natural selection is the best theory for explaining the origin and diversity of species it makes it easier to believe the theory is sound.

If you haven't studied it, then how do you know?  Do you take the word of humanists who have no proof of anything? 

quote

Natural Selection (≠) Evolution

This is an important ‘equation’  that all people should be aware of, namely ‘Natural Selection does not equal (≠) Evolution.  Christians should know it so they do not get conned, and evolutionists should know it as a reminder that they still have lots of work to do to be able to claim that they have a mechanism for evolution.

If we think of the word ‘selection’, in our common, daily experience, we select from something pre-existing.

How often we hear an example of natural selection being used as proof of evolution. Changing sizes, colours, skin patterns and shapes are often paraded as evolution’s honour roll. This bait-and-switch tactic has been so often exposed for what it is, it’s a wonder that it is still used, or that people are still taken in by it.

The very term should put people on their guard that something is missing. If we think of the word ‘selection’, in our common, daily experience, we select from something pre-existing. Think of being asked to select cards from a pack. You could select cards from a pack every second for the rest of your life and all you would only ever produce is different groups of the same cards. You would not have created anything new—only re-arranged cards, or removed cards or added cards from another pack.

If an illusionist asks you to select a card from a pack, and surprises you with something new, you know it is an illusion, a sleight of hand. We need to learn to see the evolutionists’ sleight of hand when they claim to have pulled something ‘new’ out of the pack. Selection is always from a pre-existing series or range; it creates nothing new.

This illustration applies equally to ‘selection’ in the biological context. The all-wise Creator knew the different environments that His creatures would have to adapt to after the Fall and Curse, and particularly after the Flood of Noah, in order to survive. He included in the genetic information of each ‘kind’ of creature He created a smorgasbord of variety in their makeup. This includes those features that would interact with the environment: the overall size of a plant, animal or person; the size of individual organs or limbs such as beaks and noses, leaf sizes, skin colours, hair and feather lengths, textures and colours. All of these and many more variations were programmed into the DNA of His creatures in order that as populations of the various kinds moved into new environments, expression of those variations enabled individuals to survive those environments. Individuals with those variations then passed them on to their young. When these variations and the habitat of the population expressing that variation are distinct enough, we might distinguish different ‘species’. In all of this selection process, new information is never added. It can be conserved or lost, but never gained.    unquote

Natural selection ≠ evolution (creation.com)

 

Edited March 28 by blackbird

[blackbird]

"But whether variation is selected naturally by the environment, or artificially by breeders for a particular trait, it remains just that, ‘selection’ from existing genetic information. Nothing new is created."

"Today’s Darwinists point to mutations as the mechanism which provides this novelty from which ‘Natural Selection’ selects. Evolutionists should then focus on mutations to defend their theory, instead of ‘Natural Selection’. When pressed for examples of novel genetic information or body organs created by mutation, they typically point to instances such as wingless beetles4 on islands, or the flightless cormorant on the Galapagos islands.5 The problem with these examples is obvious. While they may confer a benefit to the creatures in a specific, very unusual environment, nothing ‘new’ is added to the DNA or creatures’ body parts. They actually involve a loss or corruption of existing genetic information.6"

Natural selection ≠ evolution (creation.com)

Edited March 28 by blackbird

[eyeball]

6 hours ago, blackbird said:

If you haven't studied it, then how do you know? 

Mostly by listening at what you have to say on the topic.

[Black Dog]

There's physical evidence for evolution and none for God, Idk, seems cut and dried to me.

Edited March 28 by Black Dog

[blackbird]

23 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

There's physical evidence for evolution and none for God, Idk, seems cut and dried to me.

Sorry to disappoint you, but there is no evidence for evolution.  

The claim that natural selection is a part of evolution has been refuted.  That destroys the theory.

Natural selection ≠ evolution (creation.com)

The evidence for God is all around you in the creation.

 

Edited March 28 by blackbird

[Aristides]

I don't know what caused it so it must be God. That's evidence? Ignorance is not evidence.

[Black Dog]

13 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Sorry to disappoint you, but there is no evidence for evolution. 

There's plenty of evidence for evolution like the entire f*cking fossil record.

Quote

 

The claim that natural selection is a part of evolution has been refuted.  That destroys the theory.

Natural selection ≠ evolution (creation.com)

 

Denying something and offering up a different explanation that doesn't have any evidence supporting it is not "refuting" anything.

Quote

The evidence for God is all around you in the creation.

Bzzt wrongo, that's the evidence for evolution you're looking at. Where's the actual physical evidence for god?

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

I don't know what caused it so it must be God. That's evidence? Ignorance is not evidence.

Were you created by an intelligent designer or are you just an accidental blob of chemicals?  If you find yourself in hell, which I hope you don't, perhaps you will realize you were wrong.  Maybe there is more to it than you thought.

The complex creation is all around you.  Why can't you see it?  Extremely complex things like human cells with massive amounts of information don't just happen by chance.  Sorry it so hard for you to wrap your head around that.

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Black Dog said:

There's plenty of evidence for evolution like the entire f*cking fossil record.

Sorry to disappoint you again, but the fossil record does not prove evolution.  The fossil record shows the species that lived but not evolved.  There is no evidence in fossils that anything evolved.

 

2 hours ago, Black Dog said:

Denying something and offering up a different explanation that doesn't have any evidence supporting it is not "refuting" anything.

You never read anything.  The evidence refutes evolution.

"

Refuting Evolution—Chapter 2

A handbook for students, parents, and teachers countering the latest arguments for evolution

by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M.

Variation and natural selection versus evolution

Refuting Evolution chapter 2: Variation and natural selection versus evolution (creation.com)

[blackbird]

3 hours ago, Black Dog said:

There's plenty of evidence for evolution like the entire f*cking fossil record.

Denying something and offering up a different explanation that doesn't have any evidence supporting it is not "refuting" anything.

Bzzt wrongo, that's the evidence for evolution you're looking at. Where's the actual physical evidence for god?

The evidence for God is in the fact that the complex life forms all required an intelligent designer.  If you found a wrist watch lying on the ground, you would assume that someone designed it.  It never happened by chance.  The natural world and humans are the same.  They all required an intelligent designer.  That is actual physical evidence for God.  What is it about it that you don't see it?  Did someone tell you what to believe?

Natural selection, a foundational claim of evolutionists, has been shown to not be evolution at all.  

Natural selection ≠ evolution (creation.com)

Edited March 28 by blackbird

[Black Dog]

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Sorry to disappoint you again, but the fossil record does not prove evolution.  The fossil record shows the species that lived but not evolved.  There is no evidence in fossils that anything evolved.

Transitional species exist in the fossil record showing clear evolution from one form to another, like in hominids.

12 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The evidence for God is in the fact that the complex life forms all required an intelligent designer. 

That's not a fact lol.

Quote

If you found a wrist watch lying on the ground, you would assume that someone designed it.  It never happened by chance.  The natural world and humans are the same

The natural world and humans are not the same as a watch, which is mechanical, not biological.

 

Quote

That is actual physical evidence for God.  What is it about it that you don't see it?  Did someone tell you what to believe?

No it's not. Physical evidence for God would be just that: physical evidence of the thing itself. Finding bear shit in the woods is evidence of the existence of a bear, you're argument is the forest itself is proof there's a bear in it.

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

The natural world and humans are not the same as a watch, which is mechanical, not biological.

 

The principle of complexity is the same.  A basic cell for example has enormous amounts of data stored in it in order to control how it functions.  This never happened by chance.  It required an intelligent designer.  The theory of evolution claims a process of natural selection causes an organism to evolve into a higher species.  This has not been proven.  The opposite is true.  When a living thing mutates it loses information.  It never increases in information.  So the long strings of data in a cell could not have increased by mutations.  Something had to have placed the data there in the beginning.  Evolution cannot create data in cells.  There is no mechanism to do that.  

The complexity of the human eye is a good example.  There is no mechanism to create that other than an intelligent designer creating it in the beginning.

There are no fossils that show things evolved from one species to another.  So there is no fossil record to support the claim that man evolved from from some simpler life form.

[SkyHigh]

On 3/24/2024 at 3:14 PM, blackbird said:

This topic is a bit difficult to sum up in a few sentences because of its nature.  It does require some time reading and studying the reasons why the theory of evolution is false.

But just to summarize very briefly:

1. The principle of irreducible complexity is a principle which says something extremely complex could not come about by purely random chance processes, which is what part of the theory of evolution claims.  The eye for instance is so complex and has amazing abilities.  It could not have come about without an intelligent designer.  Many scientists have accepted this fact and have rejected the theory of evolution on that basis.

2.  The evidence that all species of life evolved is not in the fossil record.  Many people thought when they found some bits and pieces that they had found proof of prehistoric man or some ape man, but many of those findings have later been proven to be false.  One case was a tooth was found and from that paleontologists surmised what the skull must have been and from that what the rest of the body was.  Then they surmised how he lived and on and on.  It was later discovered that it was not a human or prehistoric man's tooth at all.  It was a pig's tooth.  This kind of thing has happened repeatedly in history.

3.  A mathematician-professor, Philip Stott, who is a very knowledgeable speaker on the subject has written a lot of material refuting the theory of evolution and the old earth claims.  As a mathematician, he concludes there is not enough time in the claimed age of the universe for atoms, molecules, and the basic building blocks of life to come together by random chance to create life and evolve.  The law of probability is against it happening.

But for extensive details and explanations on this there are two websites that have countless articles and videos:

Scripture & Science HOME | Reformation International College (refcm.org)

Home - creation.com

Once again, you don't even know what the theory of evolution is, in fact you have actually claimed that there is no such thing as an "evolution scientist".

Here's are a few basic questions on evolution to illustrate my point. I would ask you to please respond directly to these questions, based on your own personal understanding , not a copy paste of the Christian apologists, with no relevant education that you tend to rely on. 

Can you explain how paternity tests work ?

What are ERV"s ?

What are alleles?

If you can't answer these three simple questions, you will demonstrate you lack the command of the subject matter to have any authority to speak on the validity of one of the most agreed upon laws of the natural world held by virtually every trained scientist, in all related fields.

 

I look forward to your response