Why the theory of evolution is a fraud

[blackbird]

On 3/28/2024 at 7:15 PM, SkyHigh said:

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".

I admit I may have erred in saying there are no "evolution scientists".  I read on Wikipedia that there are evolution biologists.  However, that is beside the point.  Your claim that I don't know anything about the theory of evolution is false.  I gave a fairly good description from memory that would be accepted by a normal person as factual.  I never claimed to have an encyclopedic definition or scientific definition. I don't need to.  I have a general idea what it is.  That is good enough.  Anyone is free to express their opinions.  One doesn't need certain qualifications decided by you to comment on here.

Wikipedia has a fairly detailed description of the theory of evolution.  A lot of it would only be understandable by someone educated in the field.  It also says the theory has been modified over the past 160 years.  A lot of changes have been made to the theory and nuances added.  It is not necessary to have a detailed knowledge of the theory in order to disagree with the general concept and express one's opinions about it.  We know the general concept is that all life evolved from earlier life forms and originally from some accidental coming together of certain molecules or chemicals.

On 3/28/2024 at 7:15 PM, SkyHigh said:

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?

No, I won't attempt to answer your questions.  I am not into your word games and won't bite.

You trying to test me is nonsensical.  It has no relevance to the debate.

I never claimed to be a professor of evolutionary biology or anything similar.

I simply state what I believe about it and quote articles which I agree with.  You can take it or leave it.

On 3/28/2024 at 7:15 PM, SkyHigh said:

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.

Complete bull.   I have as much right to speak on the subject as anyone else.

Not every trained scientist agrees with the theory of evolution as you claim here.  You are incorrect in saying every scientist does and it is just an assumption you are making.  I realize the great majority probably agree with the theory of evolution, but we do not know the actual numbers that do not.  If you want to see some of the scientists who disagree with it, you can find them on creation.com and other websites.  I may have already given the names of a couple of scientists or highly educated men who disagree with it.

However, numbers of people who believe in it does not establish truth or fact.

Edited March 30 by blackbird

[blackbird]

The debate about the theory often is about the Darwinist theory of natural selection.  Evolutionist claim that natural selection results in an evolved species.  But the creationist believes there is no such thing as natural selection leading to new DNA information.  This article explains this issue from the creationist point of view.

quote

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

For the whole article go to:

Natural selection ≠ evolution (creation.com)

 

[blackbird]

Euthanasia for disabled babies?  Another fruit of evolutionary thinking.

"Conclusion

Coyne argues, “When religion vanishes … so will much of the opposition to both adult and newborn euthanasia.” Yet again, I have to agree with him; and it is surely significant that this call for killing babies should appear on a website devoted to ‘proving’ evolution. Having rejected the God who made him, Coyne has lost all sense of reality. He now doesn’t and can’t understand human nature, and can no longer think rightly about these issues.

Rather than offering ‘dignity in dying’ (a favourite slogan of the pro-euthanasia lobby), legalising killing devalues people and robs them of their status as God’s image bearers. Only by holding to the biblical account of creation can we assert the true nature of man and prevent society sinking further and further into this kind of confusion and error. Only by viewing people as God does can we make right laws and care for others as we should."

For whole article:

Euthanasia for disabled babies? (creation.com)

This is a consequence of teaching the theory of evolution to our youth in the school system.  Canada has descended into darkness.  We have abortion on demand and medical assistance in dying now being expanded to people with mental problems.  That part has been delayed for another year.  But over 16,000 people chose MAID last year in Canada.

Abortion has its own consequences.  With the low birth rate in Canada, Canada is choosing to bring in half a million immigrants a year from third world countries who do not share our values.  We are witnessing just one of the consequences of third world immigration with the large protests demanding Canadians, the education system, and the government bow to their beliefs about Israel and the Palestinian conflict in the middle east.

The problem is a low birth rate means there will not be enough people to keep paying for all the social services and old age pensions unless enough immigrants are brought in to compensate for it.  Human life is devalued by the theory of evolution when people believe that they are just part of a cosmic accident or a meeting of the chemicals.  The theory has lots of unintended consequences.

Edited March 30 by blackbird

[eyeball]

On 3/28/2024 at 12:50 PM, blackbird said:

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.

Just a side question...

Apparently all the human beings that have existed add up to some 17 billion of us.

I'm assuming Christians will discount any estimate that's older than 4000-6000 years but notwithstanding that, how many have gone to heaven and how many, percentage wise, have wound up in hell? 50-50, 60-40, 80-20?

It's seems to me heaven must be pretty sparsely populated compared to hell.

[blackbird]

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Just a side question...

Apparently all the human beings that have existed add up to some 17 billion of us.

I'm assuming Christians will discount any estimate that's older than 4000-6000 years but notwithstanding that, how many have gone to heaven and how many, percentage wise, have wound up in hell? 50-50, 60-40, 80-20?

It's seems to me heaven must be pretty sparsely populated compared to hell.

Well, it is a sad fact but you are probably right.  I don't have any way of knowing. That is God's business. 

The point is to read the Bible, believe, and avoid it completely.  Forget the math.

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

The point is to read the Bible, believe, and avoid it completely.  Forget the math.

What's hardest to overlook is the grudge god seems to have against so many humans. Sounds more like an anal monster than any sort of being who loves his creation.

I'll take my chances with Beelzebub. It sounds like everything we've heard about him is just so much elitist propaganda.

[blackbird]

56 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What's hardest to overlook is the grudge god seems to have against so many humans. Sounds more like an anal monster than any sort of being who loves his creation.

I'll take my chances with Beelzebub. It sounds like everything we've heard about him is just so much elitist propaganda.

It's not a grudge.  It is a righteous God judging evil rebellious humans.  God created man in his image and they are his property.  It is man that chose to rebel against God.  

Man must pay for his sinful nature and wicked heart.  God offered his Son as full payment for those who believe in Him and accept his sacrifice as atonement.  That is what today, Easter Sunday, is all about.

According to the Bible, those who reject Jesus Christ, have no atonement or forgiveness for their sins.  One either believes the gospel and trusts in him as Lord and Savior or they have no Savior and will face judgment.

Edited March 31 by blackbird

[Black Dog]

On 3/28/2024 at 4:24 PM, blackbird said:

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.  

Why is every creationist argument consist of stating wildly incorrect and unscientific things as though they are facts?

Quote

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. 

Except when you look in nature you find many examples of different types of eyes of varying complexity from the simplest photosensitive patches to primitive eyes to extremely complex ones like in celaphods that demonstrate different stages of how such an organ would evolve naturally.

Quote

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.

Yes prehistoric hominid fossils prove exactly that.

[9ncog9nto]

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.  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

Evolution explains why we have hairs all over our bodies- because we're mammals. If a God created us, why did it put hair on us? Is God a mammal?

[SkyHigh]

On 3/29/2024 at 12:49 PM, blackbird said:

Wikipedia has a fairly detailed description of the theory of evolution. 

Are there is the issue. 

Wikipedia is what you check to see who's right in a disagreement between friends not a resource for scientific discovery. 

Why don't you at least go on Google Scholar, type in evidence for evolution. Spend a few days reading the actual science behind evolution and not just regurgitate things you clearly don't understand ( most people don't understand things that require years of study,  me included) written by people that aren't qualified on pseudo scientific websites like creation.com

Again qualified means having been educated or having peer reviewed papers in the field they are speaking on. My financial advisor is a brilliant man when it comes to what to do with my money, but I don't go to him for medical advice because he's not a doctor.  

 

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

Why don't you at least go on Google Scholar, type in evidence for evolution.

I have heard some of the material by a creation scientist.  I attended a four or five evening slide show lecture by Professor Philip Stott on subjects related to evolution and I video recorded the presentations on four different video tapes.  I have not watched it for years and must watch them again to refresh my memory.

I have read some materials on the subject and continue to but from a Christian perspective.  

The problem with just going to an atheist science book, writer, or material is it is built on a false premise.  It is coming from the presupposition that there is no God and the Bible is false.  This presents a huge problem for one who believes the Bible.

This quote from an article might help explain why it is a huge problem.

quote

The atheistic worldview, based on this supposed history, says that we had an accidental beginning; we developed through random processes and that there is no ultimate hope for the future. It says that there are no absolutes, no basis for morality or ethics outside of what each person decides is right for themselves.

Atheism vs. theism is sometimes misrepresented as ‘science’ vs. ‘faith’. This is untrue because evolution is a worldview that is also based on faith. In fact, evolutionists and creationists have the exact same scientific facts to examine. There isn’t a scientific observation that a creationist would disagree with an evolutionist about. Creationists disagree with evolutionists conclusions because we do not agree with their starting presuppositions.

The real difference is that of the world history that each group believes in, by faith. Why by faith? Because we cannot travel back in time to see the first life form evolve or observe God create the universe. So our understanding of what happened in the past is ultimately accepted by faith. We can use scientific methods to observe evidence in the present, and then make an assessment of which history is best supported by that evidence.  unquote

Genesis: The Missing Piece of the Puzzle (creation.com)

Atheism has absolutely nothing to offer.  It is a dead end.  If you believe in atheism and evolution, there is no hope, no God, and after we die, there is nothing.  Our existence has no purpose or meaning. 

I do not accept that premise and reject it completely.

I believe in Jesus Christ and believe he forgave me for my sins.  I came close to death six years ago and have been given a second lease on life.  But I don't know how long I have.  Nobody does.  But I trust in the fact that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead as many witnesses saw him as recorded in the gospels.  When I die, I have assurance that I will be with the Lord for eternity.  That faith which God gave me is priceless.  No amount of earthly treasure would be worth more or come near that belief. 

But I am willing to carry on with a rational discussion around the subject of science.

 

Edited April 11 by blackbird

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

 

Wikipedia is what you check to see who's right in a disagreement between friends not a resource for scientific discovery. 

 

I think it's a starting point.  They usually have cites and their articles are written for a broad audience.

[Moonlight Graham]

18 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I think it's a starting point.  They usually have cites and their articles are written for a broad audience.

The starting point, and end point, is blackbird.

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

The starting point, and end point, is blackbird.

Blackbird posting in the dead of night 

 

[blackbird]

6 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

The starting point, and end point, is blackbird.

Michael Hardner said:  Blackbird posting in the dead of night.

Why me?  Why not let the word of God be our guide?  "1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. "  Genesis 1:1 KJV

"19  And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? 20  To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.  21  And they shall pass through it, hardly bestead and hungry: and it shall come to pass, that when they shall be hungry, they shall fret themselves, and curse their king and their God, and look upward. 22  And they shall look unto the earth; and behold trouble and darkness, dimness of anguish; and they shall be driven to darkness. "  Isaiah 8:19-22 KJV

This is further explained in Matthew Henry's Bible commentary:

"Isaiah 8:17 Vs. 17-22: The prophet foresaw that the Lord would hide his face; but he would look for his return in favor to them again. Though not miraculous signs, the children’s names were memorials from God, suited to excite attention. The unbelieving Jews were prone to seek counsel in difficulties, from diviners of different descriptions, whose foolish and sinful ceremonies are alluded to. Would we know how we may seek to our God, and come to the knowledge of his mind? To the law and to the testimony; for there you will see what is good, and what the Lord requires. We must speak of the things of God in the words which the Holy Ghost teaches, and be ruled by them. To those that seek to familiar spirits, and regard not God’s law and testimony, there shall be horror and misery. Those that go away from God, go out of the way of all good; for fretfulness is a sin that is its own punishment. They shall despair, and see no way of relief, when they curse God. And their fears will represent every thing as frightful. Those that shut their eyes against the light of God’s word, will justly be left to darkness. All the miseries that ever were felt or witnessed on earth, are as nothing, compared with what will overwhelm those who leave the words of Christ, to follow delusions."

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary (sermon-online.com)

Edited April 12 by blackbird

[eyeball]

On 4/10/2024 at 8:19 PM, blackbird said:

The problem with just going to an atheist science book, writer, or material is it is built on a false premise.  It is coming from the presupposition that there is no God and the Bible is false.  This presents a huge problem for one who believes the Bible.

Is it safe to say you're oblivious to why this works both ways?

[Moonlight Graham]

@blackbird A science book is based on observable evidence that's tested and re-tested.  A Bible is based on a bunch of heresay with zero evidence written thousands of years ago that only naive gullible people would take as fact.

If you don't know anything about science, which you don't, then zip it instead of spreading lies.  If you want to spread lies then go convince people that Jesus rose from the dead and walked on water.  The people who believe that nonsense shouldn't be anywhere near decision-making powers on things like climate policy or COVID vaccines or anything else science-related because if you can't tell fact from fiction then you've disqualified yourself.

And for people whose brains are too simple or untrained to understand science like vaccinations i'd highly recommend they stop trying to understand it and filling their brains with things they're incapable of understanding and just go to their doctor and ask their opinion on the vaccines and follow their medical advice, and then go home and STFU instead of trying to convince others of their stupid misinformed BS.

[SkyHigh]

On 4/10/2024 at 11:19 PM, blackbird said:

have heard some of the material by a creation scientist.

Going to a "creation scientist"( which again doesn't exist) for information on evolution, is like going to an atheist for Bible study.

But , thank you for admitting that you have zero interest in even trying to understand the things you proclaim are untrue 

[SkyHigh]

On 4/11/2024 at 7:21 AM, Michael Hardner said:

I think it's a starting point.  They usually have cites and their articles are written for a broad audience.

I'm not saying it's without any merit.

To stick with the subject matter at hand, if you were curious as to when Darwin wrote the evolution of species, definitely check out Wikipedia. 

But as it's not peer-reviewed (in fact can be edited by layman) it lacks the rigour of the source material so can't be considered a reliable resource for understanding the mechanisms required for the diversity of life on the planet.

[SkyHigh]

On 4/11/2024 at 7:21 AM, Michael Hardner said:

I think it's a starting point.  They usually have cites and their articles are written for a broad audience.

Completely off topic, but you seem to be one of the only balanced, rational people on this site.

Do you know of any other forums where people don't have to resort to calling people pedophile or Nazi ?

Cheers 

[blackbird]

6 hours ago, eyeball said:

Is it safe to say you're oblivious to why this works both ways?

No, it doesn't work both ways.  There is no equality when dealing with atheists.  When dealing with atheists, you always lose because atheism is not a fair playing field.  Anything the creationist or creation scientist says or writes is dismissed or declared invalid from the start.  In fact, creation scientists would not even be likely allowed to speak or present their view in so-called science periodicals.  And like Michael claims, only peer-reviewed material should be read or accepted, proving it is not a level playing field.

Edited April 13 by blackbird

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

 A science book is based on observable evidence that's tested and re-tested. 

Your argument is false from the start.   The theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory are pure speculation, not science to begin with.  There is no "observable evidence that's tested and re-tested".  You have bought into the great lie.  It is impossible to observe something that supposedly happened millions of years ago.  It's not science.  I rest my case.

Edited April 13 by blackbird

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, SkyHigh said:

Going to a "creation scientist"( which again doesn't exist) for information on evolution, is like going to an atheist for Bible study.

But , thank you for admitting that you have zero interest in even trying to understand the things you proclaim are untrue 

The simple fact that the theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory are unproven and unobservable should be enough to prove to you that you're dealing with pure fiction or speculation, whichever suits you.  Calling it sound science is false.  You can't observe or repeat something that supposedly happened millions of years ago.  It's not science.  It is an atheist brainwashing tool.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, SkyHigh said:

Completely off topic, but you seem to be one of the only balanced, rational people on this site.

Do you know of any other forums where people don't have to resort to calling people pedophile or Nazi ?

Cheers 

I've heard there's a forum on Reddit that has extreme moderation on any ad hominem statements and so forth. 

I think that's okay, but such a thing seems disconnected from real people. I've been on here for over 20 years. There's another forum I'm on, that includes members of here. It's smarter, smaller, but also as insulting or more so. 

Just stay here.  If you want any advice on others you can DM me.

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

But , thank you for admitting that you have zero interest in even trying to understand the things you proclaim are untrue 

6 hours ago, SkyHigh said:

Going to a "creation scientist"( which again doesn't exist) for information on evolution, is like going to an atheist for Bible study.

You fail to read articles from scientists and highly educated scholars that I refer to and dismiss it all.  So how do you expect to have a reasonable discussion?  You only accept a completely biased, one-sided view.   If you can't accept there are some scientists, who disagree with Darwinists from a scientific point of view, then that doesn't leave much leeway for reasonable discussion.