Why I Don't Believe In Evolution

[Jesus Admirer]

Why I Don't Believe In Evolution

I don

Edited February 13, 2007 by Jesus Admirer

[seanpont]

I always love the "many scientists" argument; the reality is they are a minority.

Creationism, ID, and IE are not sciences. They are not scientific theories. They are simply arguments against evolution. They offer no new proof, facts, or evidence. The only thing they offer are questions, not answers.

[hatsoff]

Are you familiar with Project Steve?

[tdrehfal]

Are you familiar with Project Steve?

Why anyone would waste their time doing anything like this is beyond me. What does it prove? That lots of people in the scientific community don't believe

in creation? Why would you be out to "prove" that if indeed its true its useless information other than to bash creationists by saying they're idiots for being

creationists. So thanks for admitting there are people that want to bash creationists just for being creationists.

Edited February 14, 2007 by tdrehfal

[tdrehfal]

...

Edited February 14, 2007 by tdrehfal

[tdrehfal]

"Evolutionists have failed to scientifically prove their theories"

They've done a much better job of it than Creation Scientists

"hoaxes, fraud, deceptions, and speculations"

Actually, there are hoaxes and frauds going on all the time, but they are always weeded out pretty quickly. Are you trying to tell me that everyone who believes evolution is in on it? Because that's what it would take for a hoax of this scale to pass unnoticed.

"I also believe there's enough scientific evidence for creation and a young earth that's contrary to an old earth which evolution teaches"

The various forms of radioisotope dating alone disprove young earth creationism. You've got a lot of evidence to discount if you believe the universe was created after the domestication of the dog.

"there's enough evidence for design in nature, which indicates intelligence and a Creator"

evolution naturally creates the appearance of design. I will get to evolution later.

"Too many things exist today that would prove it impossible to come by chance as evolution teaches"

evolution is NOT chance.

"impossible for life to spring forth from no life such as Spontaneous Generation which evolution teaches"

Life did not 'spring forth' and abiogenisis is not part of evolution. There is no general consensus among scientists on the details of abiogenesis but there are a lot of good theories that are based on more then a self contradicting book. The main reason there is no consensus is that good scientists test their results experimentally before stating them as fact (which is more than I can say for the scientists proposing the god hypothesis).

"Biology itself would indicate that only life can produce life."

Obviously you are saying that god is the life that created our life, but if he is life, doesn't he need a creator? Doesn't that creator need a creator? Does that go any further towards solving our origins?

"I'm not a scientist" Really? I never would have guessed.

"To believe that a puddle of primordial soup would become living cells and organisms would require a leap of faith in the first place, but then for these simple organisms to evolve into complex cells and organisms would require another giant leap of faith, but then to believe these complex organisms divided themselves into male & female organisms"

There was no distinct time when one form of life became another, it's a VERY slow process.

"Evolution has failed to explain how life is made up of male and female species"

I'm sorry but this is incorrect. Evolution has not failed to explain it, there's just more than one theory of how it happened. And as I said, scientists like to learn the correct answer through experiment before they call it fact because they can't call both fact. I'm not going to go into the theories here, a few seconds of google should answer your questions.

"spring forth" There's that phrase again.

"Here's a scienticfic link" In what way is the link scientific?

"One cell in the human body has enough information to create a blueprint more complicated than a blueprint of New York City" Wow, really? How many New Yorks do you think god is?

"if just one part of that information mal-functions, then life ceases to exist"

Actually, one part malfunctioning is the essence of evolution.

"How much faith does it take that all that information gathered together into one cell so life can exist came by chance"

I'd imagine it would take a lot, but I don't know of anyone who believes this. Once again, evolution has absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH CHANCE.

You mention faith quite a bit but that has nothing to do with it. People who believe evolution do so because they can see the evidence for themselves and have thought logically and reasonably about it. There is no faith involved.

"Evolutionists believe life started out with simple cells or orgainisms, which adventually evolved into complexity" We sure do.

"but Creation Scientists believe life was complexed from the start just like they are now" does that really solve the problem of complexity?

"If we looked at a picture of beautiful designs on a wall, then we would automatically believe a person with some intelligence created or painted that picture" Ahhh, the common sense argument. What does common sense tell you about fairies, unicorns and Santa? Because they're based on about as much as Creation Science. A book said god's real and created the universe, you say? Well how many books do you think say unicorns and fairies are real? How can something be false if so many people believe it, you ask? How many children believe in Santa?

"We might also consider how the earth is exactly far enough distance from the sun to support life on earth, if it was just a little further away from the sun, then the earth would be too cold for life as we know it, but if the earth was a little closer then we all would burn up" Oh, so for you to believe our world is not created you would need us to be put in a truly random spot? Ok, so because of the emptiness of space, the odds are almost certain we will wind up in the middle of nowhere. Uh oh, now we die from cold and are no longer around to ask silly questions about why we're here. The anthropic principal is that assuming there is at least one habitable planet in the universe, with everything perfectly tuned for our survival, we are going to find ourselves on it. If our planet wasn't so perfect, we wouldn't be here to ask why our planet was so perfect would we? And our planet isn't perfect is it? There are many places that are uninhabitable. Why did god make the arctic so dang cold if it was designed for us? Why do we have so little drinkable water? Why is the earth 80% ocean?

"Where did intelligence come from itself" Intelligence is advantageous. A smarter animal can evade its foes better and live longer to pass on its smart genes.

"or morals for that matter" They sure as hell didn't come from the bible. Have you actually read the Old Testament? (link deleted)

"sprung forth" there it is again

"The claim by some that the DNA between man and monkey is 98.3 % identical amuses Biologist Dr. Gary Parker, because he states that the DNA genes inherited from our own mother's and fathers are only 93 % similar at best"

There is a difference in the way these 2 percentages were measured I suspect. The man to monkey one was probably a measure of the entire gene map of both species, which includes all the variation possibilities, so it's like comparing every human to every monkey. The other one was probably a measure of you only to your mother and father only, so that's only comparing one person to another. If you used the same measure for the second one as you did for the first, it would be 100% (because we are the same species). And how would god explain such a result anyway? Even if he did create us, that wouldn't explain this percentage. Are you trying to tell me that DNA itself is wrong?

"Dr. Gary Parker also says that a jelly fish is 98 % water! A cloud is 98 % water! A watermelon is 98% water" The other 2% is the important part. Almost everything contains more water than you'd suspect. And where did you get the idea that clouds are 98% water? I would have thought they were much closer to 100%, just a guess though.

"Then we must also believe that water melons, clouds, and jelly fish are the same as us, because we are 98 % water too"

Actually we are about 90% water at birth, 70% at adulthood and 50% at old age. On average it is about 65% water. And besides, that is about the worst logic I've ever heard. You obviously have the same water content as other people (some people if not everyone) but are you the same as them?

"So if we believe in per cents" what, so now your attacking them too? When will the madness end?

"He says that the fundamental assumptions which evolution is based on, that living cells rose from Non Living matter by spontaneous generation as a result of a chain of chemical reactions of a hypotheical primordial soup are not at all confirmed by Paleontology" Actually the only assumption made by evolution is that there is a certain amount of variation between generations which isn't an assumption at all because it is observable (for example, 4 leaf clovers are mutations). Once again he is reffering to abiogenisis.

"He said all biological groups from bacteria of blue green algae to man appear abruptly in the fossil record without any links connecting them to each other" Well he's wrong. the evolution of whale blow holes for example is verifiable by intermediaries (I'm only picking that one because I was looking it up the other day when someone claimed it was an example of irreducible complexity, haven't these people heard of google?).

"He further went on to say, that the fact is: That after nearly two centuries of intensed research the paleontological evidence for evolution theory is not only rare but highly questionable. He said the point is: If evolution really happened, then the evidence would be in great abundance and incontestable. Museums would be over flowing with fossils clearly documenting.the transitions between the various biological groups. Yet there are none!"

Well, there's not none, they're just rare. But this is more due to the rarity of the required conditions for fossilisation than evolution.

"The very complexed DNA RNA protein replicating system in the cell must have been perfect from the very start! If Not! Life systems couldn't exist."

Look at it this way. The systems that are better at replicating themselves are more likely to survive right? Who says there was only one attempt?

"The only logical explanation is that this vast quanity of information came from intelligence"

Wait, wait, stop everything. Did he just call god a logical explanation?!

"The evolutionists do not want to accept this self evident fact, as a result they are producing theories which are of no scientific value, because they don't provide any idea how new genetic information is produced"

At the most fundamental level, scientific theories have to make predictions. Evolution does, but in what way is God predictable?

"From what we can say observing the human chromosomes or the human DNA and comparing it to other species is that man is original, and man has not arrived from any other species"

If it's so self evident, why are these people in such a minority. "Over 600 Scientists" is a drop in the ocean.

"The following simple analogy will show how these polonium microspheres"

Polonium isn't necessarily the first isotope in the chain that creates the polonium that creates the halo. (link deleted) Really, you need to learn to use google.

"Why Is Only Evolution Being Taught In Many Schools And Creation Science Not Being Taught? Because The Schools In America Are Being Dictated By Atheistic Humanists!" Heard of scientific method? Anything that doesn't follow it is not science, and these theories don't even come close. That is why they're not being taught as science. The rules of scientific method may seem arbitrary, but they are all derivable from logic. I do so on my website: (link deleted)

"Many are accepting evolution theory as fact and science, when there are many Scientists who say there's no evidence to support the evolution theory as fact." Actually these 'scientists', and I use the term loosely, are in the minority. A really really really small minority.

"real scientific facts, which have been discovered and would support the creation theory are not allowed to be taught in schools." I refute most of those 'facts' on my site: (Link deleted)

"Why? Because anything that would suggest creation in school is considered to be religion"

That's because it is. Would you honestly think to try to refute a generally accepted scientific fact if the bible didn't tell you to?

"Some believe evolution to be a religion in itself" except that it's based on reason, logic and evidence, and if evidence against it was found, we would reject it. Can you say the same about Christianity? It's not like evidence against evolution is impossible to find. According to the young earth theory, fossils were created rapidly during the biblical flood. So if a cat were found on the same level (and therefore same time geologically) as when the first microbe fossils formed, it would disprove evolution (though not necessarily prove creation science, just bolster it a bit).

Now for evolution. I mentioned the assumption of natural variation. So an animal with ever so slightly faster legs is born. When it is pitted against other animals of it's species in a survival of the fittest world, it is more likely to come out on top and reproduce because it can escape predators easier and capture prey more effectively. Its children will all have slightly better legs than the rest of the population and slowly, the population will be overrun with these animals with better legs. An advance in the species is made. These variations are very very rare, and each advance takes many generations to become the dominant one making evolution a very slow process, much slower then I'm guessing you have it laid out in your head. If a varied group becomes isolated from the rest of the population, the different conditions will cause different traits to be more advantageous, such as different coloured fur etc. This is speciation.

Since the only requirement of evolution is variation, it is undeniable that evolution is happening to some extent. The question is, is it enough to explain all the complexity around us? If we ignore abiogenesis and say that we are starting from the tiny single celled organisms it forms, then there is sufficient evidence to make evolution the generally accepted explanation for all life. Besides, invoking god because we can't explain something strait away is no way to do science. It creates more problems than it solves (see my site for more on this).

Believe what you want, but don't call it science.

I'm glad you admit that abiogenesis is not evolution, so thanks for stating that it's just a hypothesis and doesn't even make it a theory. It's not really even

a good hypothesis. I bet Miller and Urey would even admit that.

You talk about a 98.3% similarity to "monkeys". There are 264 species of "monkeys". I doubt you've mapped them all. Get real.

I don't know if this similarity issue is real or not but you certainly haven't mapped every "monkey" Maybe you're referring to one

species, a chimpanzee perhaps?

Common sense tells me that, according to evolutionary theory, unicorns are certainly possible and if we defined a unicorn as basically a "horned horse"

and a horn gave a horse an advantage in its environment than unicorns would be probable. So I guess you believe in unicorns after all. There isn't

an entire book that claims to be eyewitness testimony about Santa Clause that matches up with things he's done in history. But i'm glad you admit

that "common sense" is of no value to you.

Saying slowly getting an ever slightly faster set of legs has nothing to do with being able to outrun predators if the speed differential is so negligible

that they can't outrun them. Why don't you factor in the predator-to-prey speed gap and see if this really works.

You confuse acquired knowledge over time with intelligence as though you spitting back textbooks verbatim means you're the one who can

claim to have come up with the idea. The fact that humans can know produce guns would be knowledge over time. This doesn't really

seem to happen in the animal kingdom outside of humans. So, unless I know how to make a gun from scratch, my intelligence isn't

different than those that existed thousands of years ago and I could be walking in the forest and eaten by a bear rather than shooting

it. So I guess intelligence isn't as advantageous as you think it is. Functional Advantages appear to be more so. I can't outrun

a lot of animals and a lot of them can kill me. What my intelligence as a human does is tell me to stay away from areas of a complex

ecosystem that have predators that I can't kill. The aliens in the movie "alien" or "aliens" are a better example of something that

evolution should produce. Assuming their intelligence is equal to humans, or even if it is moreso, look who has the advantage and

why. Now apply that to evolutionary advantages. They are way better adapted to the environment and simply HARD TO KILL.

It seems like being HARD TO KILL, in the physical sense, rather than intellectual sense would be the logical outcome of evolution.

Intelligence requires one to think and acquire knowledge and pass it on, being physically hard to kill is much, much easier.

Hoaxes and frauds prove that perhaps we shouldn't trust scientists so blindly if it takes them decades to figure out that they were

duped and they don't scritinize data and evidence without bias enough to prevent this kind of duping from occuring. There's no

excuse for these kinds of hoaxes in the scientific community because this supposedly infallible peer-review should prevent this

from happening. Hoaxes are a product of utter incompetence.

I'm not going to discuss the dates/rocks/young earth/old earth since there are various theological stances on it.

Radiometric dating certainly does have problems. And you're supposed to be using multiple dating methods

to confirm samples not just one.

All it takes is a glance at youtube to prove that morals aren't coming from evolution, either. People saying we need to burn every Bible

and "eliminate creationists from the gene pool" aren't biased?

Edited February 14, 2007 by IslandRose

[hatsoff]

Why anyone would waste their time doing anything like this is beyond me. What does it prove? That lots of people in the scientific community don't believe

in creation? Why would you be out to "prove" that if indeed its true its useless information other than to bash creationists by saying they're idiots for being

creationists. So thanks for admitting there are people that want to bash creationists just for being creationists.

There's not much to do except poke fun. Creation science doesn't deserve what little serious attention it gets. Project Steve meets Creationists on their own level. It is in fact a direct refutation to a common Creationist claim. Seanpont repeated that claim above, so I pointed him in the direction of the Project.

Maybe you should chastise him for bringing up the issue instead of myself for responding to it.

[tdrehfal]

"I'm glad you admit that abiogenesis is not evolution, so thanks for stating that it's just a hypothesis and doesn't even make it a theory. It's not really even a good hypothesis. I bet Miller and Urey would even admit that."

I fail to see how calling on god to solve our problems is any better than a hypothesis that is at least based on some level of evidence. There is no evidence that god created life, so even if I have one tiny piece of evidence for abiogenesis it is more plausible. Can you address the problems that a god hypothesis creates rather than just saying that abiogenesis is not a good theory. I

Edited February 14, 2007 by tdrehfal

[apothanein kerdos]

I always love the "many scientists" argument; the reality is they are a minority.

Creationism, ID, and IE are not sciences. They are not scientific theories. They are simply arguments against evolution. They offer no new proof, facts, or evidence. The only thing they offer are questions, not answers.

Hmmm...someone hasn't studied IE. Aside from being critical to naturalistic theory, they have also put forth hypothesis as well as discoveries that support design.

Oh, and ironically enough, Newtonian physics is based on the belief there is a Designer. So it's not science?

[seanpont]

I always love the "many scientists" argument; the reality is they are a minority.

Creationism, ID, and IE are not sciences. They are not scientific theories. They are simply arguments against evolution. They offer no new proof, facts, or evidence. The only thing they offer are questions, not answers.

Hmmm...someone hasn't studied IE. Aside from being critical to naturalistic theory, they have also put forth hypothesis as well as discoveries that support design.

Oh, and ironically enough, Newtonian physics is based on the belief there is a Designer. So it's not science?

For someone who is always saying, "that's a strawman arguement", you seem quite fond of building them yourself.