Is Evolutionist Science worth believing?

[Tattva]

---

hehe, micro evolution is nothing to be surprised about it is within the boundaries of genetic science and supported by mathematical structural assumptions. it is not surprising to see a different kind of dog (a white one) as off spring of two black parent dogs.

macro evolution, defied a lot of scientific facts and laws, to say the very least. and for the evolutionist to take science in a leap of assumption and believe it, is nothing but FAITH! but if you still insist it, as scientific then prove it! show me how a banana can evolve to be an elephant! tell me how hydrogen is transformed into uranium and the rest of the elements in the periodic table. these are what your evolution is saying " macro evolution" by all means prove it!


well sir science is exact. it can be observe and repeated. therefore it can be proven!
if it is based on "trust me, it's true" then it is not science it is faith! and please spare me your side comments about my belief, I know i have faith. FAITH! that is not an issue. e ikaw? Science? hehehe. you have more faith than I do! and if it is incomplete for the last 150years, don't you think you need to start re-assessing? it is ok unta if, in the process of pursuing your science you don't break any other know scientific facts. but you do!

it is therefore no longer a science but of faith and religion!

As I have said, I have faith, that is not an issue satan tempting GOD to turn stones to bread but in all fairness to our GOD, HE didn't yield to that temptation. nd we are not even talking science here but rather faith, my faith in my LORD.

e ikaw? diverting strategy? rocks turned to life form?
here you go again........ evolution didn't say life came from a rock? so tattva where did life came from according to your brand of evolution. i didn't know that evolution have other interpretation, i thought it is only limited to religion to have different versions, to evolution science kuno pud d i? it is simply because evolution is no science it is a religion that is subject to individual interpretation. so, what does your brand of evolution says about start of life?

chemical evolution is not covered by evolution? wow. different brand. ok i get it, drop all that can't be proven by evolution as not part of it, nice try. Evolution is not only limited to your interpretation, evolution tried to explain the start of everything.

please enrich yourself with more of evolution stuff before you make assumptive statements. and you're amazed by how i misinterpret evolution. hahaha. say that to yourself.

Trust me its true? hmm, when exactly did i said that? or maybe this is how you want to interpret my arguments. Pls dont spread more lies. Everything i posted is base on What science said.


Microevolution is nothing to be surprised? im sure they were surprised back then when biology discovered it. FYI microevolution goes beyond changes in colors. What happens in the molecular level is what you need to consider. There are lost and at the same time forming into a different "creation" in the genes thus the different color appear and its not only happening on that level. Some even produce a different features, that when you see it, it hardly looks like the kind where it came from e.g the speciation of the horse. In other words Mr.Ho_chia kung imong e trace kung asa gikan ang code sa iyang gene nga responsible sa iyang "DIFFERENT nga feature dili ni nimo makit.an sa iyang parents, and that is EVOLUTION, some will even call it abnormalities or anomaly in the genetic codes. And you know why they call it that way? because normally the offspring inherits the genes of their parents so kung imong e trace ang gene nga responsible sa pagka blue eye sa imong anak, makit.an ni both sa parents ug sa iyang anak but in this case ang gene nga nag cause sa different feature sa offspring dili nimo makita sa iyang parents. hehe, i bet creationist never told you this. They will just give you a blanket explanation of what microevolution is, but not the details.

Now a mass production of this trend will eventually lead to a different kind. Understand? That my friend is Macroevolution. Ever heard of Common Descent? re search it. My advise dont search it on creationist websites, that if you want to have a clearer view of evolution.

The last 150 yrs was quite favorable. The discovery of microevolution,the formulation of common descent. Why should i re-assess? I am breaking science? How? Never mind answering it. hehe :mrgreen:

[boomer]

...an inter-related topic on the "Big Bang Theory" and the Biological Evolution of Darwin:


Big Bang and Biological Evolution
David Dean

There are serious logical and scientific problems with the theories of the “Big Bang” and biological evolution.

....

Why doesn’t the entire scientific community come out and admit that evolution is a dead theory? One reason is that it is embarrassing to admit that they have been wrong all along. Another is that it would mean re-training an entire generation of science teachers, and throwing out millions of biology textbooks that teach evolution. But the real reason why most scientists won’t give up the theory of evolution is that the only workable alternative to evolutionism is to admit that the Bible’s account of God creating our universe is true – and people have strong religious and philosophical reasons why they are unwilling to do so.

ah, i beg to differ...they can re-write them as easy as what they did with other recent discoveries. thats why even encyclopedias get "upgraded/revised" as time moves on.

[mordecai_327]

ah, i beg to differ...they can re-write them as easy as what they did with other recent discoveries. thats why even encyclopedias get "upgraded/revised" as time moves on.

...no problem to me. Try sending them a request bro :mrgreen:

[boomer]

...no problem to me. Try sending them a request bro :mrgreen:

they'll revise it when it NEEDS to, yun lang po. a simple request wont do...you'll need something to replace it with, something BETTER...so far wala pa eh. :mrgreen:

i'm also waiting for this BETTER thing to come out...so far we're just getting there, as for now... evolution is enough.

[Tattva]

well sir science is exact. it can be observe and repeated. therefore it can be proven!
if it is based on "trust me, it's true" then it is not science it is faith! and please spare me your side comments about my belief, I know i have faith. FAITH! that is not an issue. e ikaw? Science? hehehe. you have more faith than I do! and if it is incomplete for the last 150years, don't you think you need to start re-assessing? it is ok unta if, in the process of pursuing your science you don't break any other know scientific facts. but you do!

it is therefore no longer a science but of faith and religion!

As I have said, I have faith, that is not an issue satan tempting GOD to turn stones to bread but in all fairness to our GOD, HE didn't yield to that temptation. nd we are not even talking science here but rather faith, my faith in my LORD.

e ikaw? diverting strategy? rocks turned to life form?
here you go again........ evolution didn't say life came from a rock? so tattva where did life came from according to your brand of evolution. i didn't know that evolution have other interpretation, i thought it is only limited to religion to have different versions, to evolution science kuno pud d i? it is simply because evolution is no science it is a religion that is subject to individual interpretation. so, what does your brand of evolution says about start of life?

chemical evolution is not covered by evolution? wow. different brand. ok i get it, drop all that can't be proven by evolution as not part of it, nice try. Evolution is not only limited to your interpretation, evolution tried to explain the start of everything.

please enrich yourself with more of evolution stuff before you make assumptive statements. and you're amazed by how i misinterpret evolution. hahaha. say that to yourself.

Not all is repeatable. hehe I never said that you must trust me? tsk tsk. Thats how you interpret my argument? wow it is a pure misrepresentation, i can call it a lie,false witnessing. What i said is "Who knows that after 500yrs from now science can find the complete explanation". Just like the way they discovered microevolution. Just like the way they discovered that the earth is not the center of the universe, refuting the LIES and DOUBTS of some religious people. You know these religious people said that there is no evidence for evolution and some years before that they used to say that the earth is the center of the universe, tsk tsk. Science proved them wrong.


Diverting strategy? how?


ooops...In this life there are misrepresentations and true presentations. It so happened my friend that your brand of evolution is on the" MIS-representation" side.

FYI i have already read what evolution is and in fact i have gone to a creationist site as well. Anyways thank you for your advise. But one thing is for sure...chemical evolution and organic evolution is not at all EVOLUTION.

And no they are not dropping what they cant prove but obviously they are dropping what evolution is not. Just trying to give a clear picture negating the misrepresentations made by the other groups.

[Tattva]

...an inter-related topic on the "Big Bang Theory" and the Biological Evolution of Darwin:


Big Bang and Biological Evolution
David Dean

There are serious logical and scientific problems with the theories of the “Big Bang” and biological evolution.

First, the “Big Bang” does not explain the origin of the universe – it merely attempts to explain the observed fact of the universe’s expansion. Cosmologists (scientists who study the history of the universe) are strangely silent about the origin of the matter that makes up our physical universe. If you push them, their answer is typically “it has always existed” (in other words, physical matter itself has the property of eternality). Is that really any less difficult philosophically than the idea that the universe is not eternal, but that it was created by an eternal God? I don’t think so, and I doubt you do either; in fact, the exact opposite is more likely.

Second, to suggest that the first living creatures were assembled by random chance is mathematically and physically absurd. The level of complexity of the simplest living creature far exceeds that of the most complicated modern computer. Even if the simplest chemical “building blocks of life” were to come into existence by chance (which is extraordinarily unlikely), the idea that they could somehow be “assembled” by random events is as silly as insisting that you could disassemble Rolex watch and put the pieces inside a jar – and if you then shook it long enough, out would pop a working watch. You know what would really happen – you’ll end up with a mess of bent and broken metal and shattered glass. The reality is that the building blocks of life (DNA, RNA, and other complex organic molecules) are far more fragile and complicated than the tiniest parts of the finest watch – and much harder to assemble into a working final product.

Third, to suggest that random mutations (which are nothing but instances of damage to the genetic code of living organisms) could produce improved living creatures is ridiculous. The genetic code is like the instructions for assembling a complex device. Let’s imagine that you own a computer-controlled factory that builds black-&-white television sets. The idea that a random mutation in an animal’s genetic code would produce improved offspring is analogous to saying that a random error in the program that controls your TV factory would suddenly cause your assembly line to start producing color TV’s! You know how silly this idea is. If anybody really believed it, software companies would fire all their programmers, and instead have monkeys dance on the keyboards of their computers – and then sell the best of the wonderful new programs that would appear “by chance”. You may laugh at the image of dancing monkeys – but the idea of beneficial mutations leading to improved creatures is actually even more laughable, scientifically speaking.

Fourth, in the 150 or so years since Darwin popularized the theory of biological evolution, no beneficial random mutation has ever been observed in nature. If evolution was ever occurring, it certainly seems to have stopped since Darwin! Actually, this is no surprise. Modern science is showing that the genetic code seems to be specifically designed so that any damage to that code renders the animal so defective that it dies, or of it survives, it is unable to reproduce.

Finally, let’s just pretend that a beneficial random mutation should occur. Suddenly we have an improved animal – perhaps a termite that can eat rock and not just wood. Such a wonderful new creature would have a greatly improved chance of surviving compared to normal termites that can only eat wood. Presto, a new species! Right? Wrong! There is a little problem here. Our stone-eating termite may never run out of food – but he will be lonely all his days, and die a bachelor, because there are no rock-eating female termites to be found. His wonderful new genes will be lost to posterity, because the accident that made him what he is is certainly not going to “accidentally” produce a genetic compatible mate for him in the same locale at the same moment in history.

“But if biological evolution makes no sense, why do all the scientists and universities teach it?” you may ask. Yes, evolutionism is the dominant theory in the academic world, but recent advances in genetics, biochemistry, physics, and mathematical theory are pushing more and more scientists to admit that evolution is simply an unworkable theory. The theory of evolution is just plain bad science.

Why doesn’t the entire scientific community come out and admit that evolution is a dead theory? One reason is that it is embarrassing to admit that they have been wrong all along. Another is that it would mean re-training an entire generation of science teachers, and throwing out millions of biology textbooks that teach evolution. But the real reason why most scientists won’t give up the theory of evolution is that the only workable alternative to evolutionism is to admit that the Bible’s account of God creating our universe is true – and people have strong religious and philosophical reasons why they are unwilling to do so.

No need to explain the origin, Science is for observable evidence not speculations. They see no God so why would they conclude that a God is the origin of the universe.

Their explanation and data came from what they observed and this explanation is not yet complete, it is a work in progress.

[mordecai_327]

...an inter-related topic on the "Big Bang Theory" and the Biological Evolution of Darwin:


Big Bang and Biological Evolution
David Dean

There are serious logical and scientific problems with the theories of the “Big Bang” and biological evolution.

...

Why doesn’t the entire scientific community come out and admit that evolution is a dead theory? One reason is that it is embarrassing to admit that they have been wrong all along. Another is that it would mean re-training an entire generation of science teachers, and throwing out millions of biology textbooks that teach evolution. But the real reason why most scientists won’t give up the theory of evolution is that the only workable alternative to evolutionism is to admit that the Bible’s account of God creating our universe is true – and people have strong religious and philosophical reasons why they are unwilling to do so.

they'll revise it when it NEEDS to, yun lang po. a simple request wont do...you'll need something to replace it with, something BETTER...so far wala pa eh. :mrgreen:

i'm also waiting for this BETTER thing to come out...so far we're just getting there, as for now... evolution is enough.

... evolution is enough.


The opposite of your position:

...If you admit that humans were created (and are not the product of some random process like evolution), you have no choice but to recognize that as a human, you are obligated to serve and obey your Creator. For people who do not want to acknowledge or obey God, evolution provides a convenient excuse to ignore Him. Unfortunately, while this excuse may get them "off the hook" in their own minds, it will be entirely useless on the day when they find themselves standing face to face with their Creator in the day of judgment.

[Mr.Ho_chia]

Trust me its true? hmm, when exactly did i said that? or maybe this is how you want to interpret my arguments. Pls dont spread more lies. Everything i posted is base on What science said.


Microevolution is nothing to be surprised? im sure they were surprised back then when biology discovered it. FYI microevolution goes beyond changes in colors. What happens in the molecular level is what you need to consider. There are lost and at the same time forming into a different "creation" in the genes thus the different color appear and its not only happening on that level. Some even produce a different features, that when you see it, it hardly looks like the kind where it came from e.g the speciation of the horse. In other words Mr.Ho_chia kung imong e trace kung asa gikan ang code sa iyang gene nga responsible sa iyang "DIFFERENT nga feature dili ni nimo makit.an sa iyang parents, and that is EVOLUTION, some will even call it abnormalities or anomaly in the genetic codes. And you know why they call it that way? because normally the offspring inherits the genes of their parents so kung imong e trace ang gene nga responsible sa pagka blue eye sa imong anak, makit.an ni both sa parents ug sa iyang anak but in this case ang gene nga nag cause sa different feature sa offspring dili nimo makita sa iyang parents. hehe, i bet creationist never told you this. They will just give you a blanket explanation of what microevolution is, but not the details.

Now a mass production of this trend will eventually lead to a different kind. Understand? That my friend is Macroevolution. Ever heard of Common Descent? re search it. My advise dont search it on creationist websites, that if you want to have a clearer view of evolution.

The last 150 yrs was quite favorable. The discovery of microevolution,the formulation of common descent. Why should i re-assess? I am breaking science? How? Never mind answering it. hehe :mrgreen:

yah, just like when you announce to the world that rock transforming to life form is not part of evolution. You lack alot of information, I bet meditaion doesn't increase learning at all. Hahaha\

Tell me tattva is micro evolution goes beyond what is in the genetic information of the organism undergoing such? Did open your mind now? yah the information will differ it may not be seen in the immediate parents but it is in the lineage. and the bible talks about it in the creation as well, they will bring forth their own kind --- a fox, dog and a wolf is certainly of the same kind but a banana is definitely not. any 3 year old will be able to spot it right away.

you see macro evolution is telling us that whales are land animals in the past it is only in the not so far past that they become water mamals. See now?! and what worst they atribute the start of life from non-life which is coming from a rock.\

a o d i, lahi man sab d i imong brand of evolution noh? can you please tell the world again that rock transforming to life form is not part of evolution and plese explain where life begins...... tattva evolution says......


all you did was to give opinion which is nothing new.... gene mutation and abnormalities is indeed seen in science.... and it causes more harm than good the most useless........ nothing in microevolution suggest that a genetic mutataion is benificial and causes an entirely different change.
YOu know why it is imposible to mutate organisms in a large scale basis? because it will DESTROY the said orgaism!


haha, mass production will lead to what? to an entirely different kind? maypa-understan- understand ka pa ha. hahaha. again dodong tattva, in my years of study and experience in biology, i have not seen a large scale gene mutation, more thatn 10 percent genetic mutation kills the organism. got it! meditate some more maybe it will be revealed to you in your dreams.

don't forget to give your brand of evolution on how life started, you seemed to have dis-agreed with darwin in this aspect. and also chemical and cosmic evolution which darwin explained in his theory but you said it is not part of evolution, I assume your meditation was either in complete or total different version. please do the honor to show the world your brand......... go ahead please........ arun you will indeed be for science and not breaking them!

[boomer]

... evolution is enough.


The opposite of your position:

...If you admit that humans were created (and are not the product of some random process like evolution), you have no choice but to recognize that as a human, you are obligated to serve and obey your Creator. For people who do not want to acknowledge or obey God, evolution provides a convenient excuse to ignore Him. Unfortunately, while this excuse may get them "off the hook" in their own minds, it will be entirely useless on the day when they find themselves standing face to face with their Creator in the day of judgment.

hmmm magic dust plus miracle h20= living and breathing lifeforms...ahhhhh, i'll pass on that one.
its not really a convenient excuse to ignore god...thats just what you want to think.

i believe in evolution because i find it more THOROUGH compared to ka-zaam, poof there it is...version.

even the pope acknowledges evolution for some matter, those guys believe in god too.

if you want me to believe that we came from mud pies, why cant i just believe that we came from bamboo shoots (ala malakas and maganda) at least im patronizing my FILIPINO heritage.haha

[turbomark]

why niundang man og evolve ang mga tawo from unggoy to tawo dapat tuloytuloy ang pag-evolve.....haay maayo na lang gani adam og eve akong ginikanan...hahaha unsa kahay nawong nato sa kung nipadayon og evelove?.....