Would an Athiest be an Evolutionists?

"THOUGHTS ON EVOLUTION"
Adapted from the book; Lifeâ??s Story by Mark Haville

A coral reef is one of the worlds many interdependent eco-systems. An eco-system is an environment which contains a variety of life-forms that cannot survive without each other. Ultimately the whole earth is an eco-system delicately balanced to sustain life. A relationship where creatures depend on each other for survival is called symbiosis. Of course if different creatures depend on each other to stay alive now, the question we must ask is have they always done so in the past? And if they didnâ??t evolutionists need to come up with evidence to prove their hypothesesâ??. A Theory-tale is not true science.

To answer this question, and others that contradict widely accepted ideas about life on earth, consider these facts from the coral reef fish of the world. Coral Reef fish have more than a tale to see, they have a tale to tell. It's a story that can be understood by everyone, from the simplest child, to the most educated professor. Imagine how incredible it would be if a collection of books existed that taught how to design a coral reef fish. Their pages would have to contain the exact details for every cell and tissue type, the data for big every internal organ, eye and fin should be; and what colour and markings each fish would have and how each piece would be positioned in its body. The information that determines how every living thing is built is called DNA, Deoxyribonucleic acid. Just a pinhead of this DNA holds sufficient information to fill enough books stacked in a single column to reach from the Earth to the Moon and back over 500 times. Miraculously, every living creature contains all its instructions for life in this microscopic code called DNA.

When Charles Darwin wrote his Origin of Species, he knew nothing of DNA and the microscopic codes of life. If he did, his book might never have been published because the DNA tells a story evolutionists don't want you to know. DNA is made of sugars, phosphates and bases. None of its component parts contain any information in and of themselves. It is only in the arrangement of the parts that the code is formed. It is like the very words you are reading. Neither the ink nor the paper (or in this case the characters on your screen) that is the parts, contain the information. It is only in the arrangement of these letters that information is communicated. If you swallow a page from a book, or memorise the words on your screen they will never produce anything.

All codes are therefore evidence of outside intelligence because someone must have assigned meaning to the letters or parts. There must also be an agreement between both the writer and the readers as to what is being communicated.

This debate over the origins of life has raged for a 150 years, but now finally for anyone with any intellectual honesty the debate is over. This is because Darwinâ??s â??theoriesâ?� were not founded upon â??truly scientific principles; neither did he have access to the information available to us today.

DNA research has now proven conclusively that macro-evolution is impossible, because like fish, all living things have an in-built flexibility in their DNA blueprints of life. The flexibility allows for things like adaptations in size, colour and patterning; but the gene pool has a fixed limit to its flexibility and this limit cannot be stretched. So the amount of adaptation that takes place, never results in one kind of animal changing into another kind.

Whether it is pigeons, dogs or horses breeders have faced these boundaries for centuries. Dog breeders have produced many new species but there is always a limit to what you can do. Some breeds have breathing problems or other weaknesses as a result of selective breeding. The breeding of race horses encounters the same challenges. Ultimately breeders can only go so far before they have to return to the original parent stock.

Through all of this new kinds of animals are never produced only new species of the original parent kind. This means for example that you could breed two different species of horse together and produce a hybrid or a third new species but it would still be a family member of the horse kind. Horses cannot breed with cows or sheep. Even breeding a horse with a donkey will only produce a mule that is almost always sterile. Like horses that only breed horses, fish are still only breeding fish. Centuries of scientific observation testifies to the stubbornness of animals to become anything else.

The option taken by many scientists is to re-define new species to mean new kinds. A German professor once told me how different types of Finches that could no longer breed proved the theory of evolution as the ability to breed is one of the determining factors of speciation. Yes, I replied but they are still Finches! New species yes, but not new kinds. This blurring of terms has confused many people for too long.



As you can see, both of these are species of fish, but the same kind of fish, if they could breed together and produce a different kind of animal, like a Dolphin or a Turtle that would be macro-evolution. Micro-evolution, producing new species of the same kind is observed all the time.



These reproduction facts have been observed for centuries but now the study of DNA has provided fascinating evidence of a mechanism that helps prevent the DNA's coded information from being corrupted. Although the DNA code has a built-in ability to change, mistakes occur each time cells divide and copy their DNA. These mutations would be very destructive were it not for the code checking mechanism involving DNA polymerase. When new cells are being constructed, the checking mechanism makes sure that every building plan dispatched to construct each new part, is exactly the same as the original code. This is rather like checking photocopies to see if they are the same as the original. DNA Polymerase is there to stop mutations and protect against harmful changes, and because additional information cannot be added through mutations or any other means, the adaptations that do occasionally take place in animals never become more complex in nature, as required to support the theory of macro-evolution.

This is so basic to biology that it is absurd to suggest another option. If you have animal A and you breed it with animal B, then animal C, that is the offspring can only ever be a combination of the information from A + B. To become something else requires new information, and chemicals. Where would they come from? And how would they become part of the process?

Evolutionists make only fanciful suggestions and the theory-tale is expanded. This means that new kinds of animals can never be produced only variations, or new species of the existing types and kinds of animals. Despite being a keen observer of natural history Darwin refused to accept that there were fixed created boundaries between the very different and distinct animal kinds.

True testable science like DNA research now proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt and leaves no room for fanciful theories or â??interpretationsâ?�. The science of the classification of species into distinct animal kinds is called Taxonomy. This science of Taxonomy was developed by a creationist not an evolutionist and one is left to wonder why evolutionists try to hide these facts, probably because there simply is no real scientific evidence to support their ideas.

**Link to original: http://www.npnvideos.com/io_creation.htm

Wow... Just wow...

Talk about a patronizing piece of trash article. I've rarely read anything so insulting to human intelligence.

Anyway, we just had a topic on Evolution not long, and I think everything's been said in there.

You know, creationists everywhere are scrambling to change their theories to this "intelligent design", though believe there's nothing intelligent about that. Also, saying that evolution ist just a theory proves nothing. Electricity is "just" a theory, yet it powers the world. Gravity is also just a theory, yet we're not floating into space as we speak. Intelligent design, on the other hand, is the last attempt for creationists to hold onto their fairy tale world, where good gentle beings put together little moecules called DNA into a divine order which brings true human life on Earth.

(Wanted to add this but time ran out... ) :D

The only thing that interests me about this debate is the fact that it happens only in the US. I have never heard of anybody else in the world debating this. I have nevert Headr of an Italian creationist, or a Bristish one, or a Chinese one either (and let's stop kidding ourselves, intelligent design was only invented to cater to creationists). Why is that? Are Americans theonly people smart enough to doubt evolution?

evolution occours within the creator just as much as it does the creations.


when you paint a picture, does the paint not evolve and take form at your own whims? a better example is a story, movie, videogame, or piece of music. those are our creations, and we have controll over their own evolution. pretend they have a conscious mind, do they believe in us or our controll over their evolution?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by siSTARindigo

An eco-system is an environment which contains a variety of life-forms that cannot survive without each other.

---

Huge assumption is made here that these animals were always dependant on each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by siSTARindigo

The information that determines how every living thing is built is called DNA...the gene pool has a fixed limit to its flexibility and this limit cannot be stretched...but there is always a limit to what you can do...[/

---

This information codes for certain proteins not for a specific organism itself. A tomato would not be what it is unless it's DNA coded for the proteins to manufacture it. Yet we can alter the DNA with that of fish and produce ones resistance to frost. DNA is interchangeable between every living organism. Doesnâ??t this imply a common origin or at least give an idea that there could be one? How is this system not flexible when it's "built" out of interchangeable parts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by siSTARindigo

..the DNA tells a story evolutionists don't want you to know......wonder why evolutionists try to hide these facts, probably because there simply is no real scientific evidence to support their ideas.

---

Bullshit. Scientist is always open to share their evidence and their ideas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by siSTARindigo

All codes are therefore evidence of outside intelligence because someone must have assigned meaning to the letters or parts.

---

Another huge assumption.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by siSTARindigo

...Darwinâ??s â??theoriesâ?� were not founded upon â??truly scientific principles...

---

Darwinâ??s original ideas were based on direct observations. These ideas were then built upon by other scientists to create todayâ??s ideas of evolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by siSTARindigo

...breeders have faced these boundaries for centuries...

---

"Centuries" is the key word here. Evolution happens on the order of hundreds of thousands to millions of years! And it usually doesnâ??t show up until a major cataclysmic event that forces species to change rapidly (still in the order of hundreds of thousands of years.) (Past eventâ??s: Snowball Earth, Dinosaurs getting wiped out, any large scale extinction event) To say that no new species of horses were seen in "centuries" is complete bullshit. They werenâ??t breeding for new species in the first place. Only for certain features.

This guy's story is full of holes. I'm pretty sure you just posted this to waste my time because you knew I'd respond to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by F L E S H

The only thing that interests me about this debate is the fact that it happens only in the US.

---

Yea seriously, I feel most of the world is laughing at us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stoner Shadow Wolf

evolution occurs within the creator just as much as it does the creations.

... we have control over their own evolution....

---

If your talking God=Universe then I'm with you.

We do in some respect. I think we do technologically (and someday I hope socially.) I know what you mean is mentally or the evolution of the mind. But I still don't think were anything but an extremely complex carbon based system run on chemical energy and electrical impulses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MoonStarer420

This guy's story is full of holes. I'm pretty sure you just posted this to waste my time because you knew I'd respond to it.

---

Yes, because that is all I think about, YOU!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MoonStarer420

If your talking God=Universe then I'm with you.

We do in some respect. I think we do technologically (and someday I hope socially.) I know what you mean is mentally or the evolution of the mind. But I still don't think were anything but an extremely complex carbon based system run on chemical energy and electrical impulses.

---

and it was that ever evolving consciousness that CREATED the chemecal energy, carbon, and electrical impulses, which followed suit and evolved on their own, as well as at the command of whatever you want to think of as being "God", be it the universe collectively, or just the awareness behind the creation of said univers. i say both ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by siSTARindigo

Yes, because that is all I think about, YOU!

---

I only thought so because you posting this right after we were talking about evolution in another thread.

actually it was more for flesh, but you too. Anyone with somthing that makes sense....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by siSTARindigo

All codes are therefore evidence of outside intelligence because someone must have assigned meaning to the letters or parts. There must also be an agreement between both the writer and the readers as to what is being communicated.

---

And right there is why intelligent design doesn't work, why it is utterly non-scientific. All ID is, is a proposed hypothesis for why life is so complex. And rather than actually providing one shred of proof that intelligence is behind the complexity of DNA, you simply work off why the other theories are incorrect. All these creationists and their "science" do is say "ok, here's why evolution is wrong, we don't have other theory's right now, so that proves ID is right". proving one theory wrong does not validate another theory.

Science is not saying "well look at it, something must have...." because that in itself isn't science, it's assumption. science works under the process of saying "ok, this is the way things are, here's a possible explanation, now lets find proof of this explanation", while creation uses a process of "ok, this is the way things are, here's a possible explanation, we don't have another proposal, so that makes ours right".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrdevious

you simply work off why the other theories are incorrect.

---

I just thought the article was interesting.....I don't think I have even added my opinion on the article. Just asked a question, is an atheist an evolutionist.......

well... i see it this way: computers didnt evolve from premedorial soup, people had to build them.


if you were a computer, would you believe in humans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stoner Shadow Wolf

well... i see it this way: computers didnt evolve from premedorial soup, people had to build them.


if you were a computer, would you believe in humans?

---

Humans didnt emerge from the primordial soup either. Most humans were made by other humans just like computers. The first humans were made by a homind ape who in turn was derived from an earlier mammal. The linneage goes back billions of years. Humans and computers are latecomers with a very narrow view of history

erhm, first life emerged from primodrial soup which eventually evolves into humans after eons upon eons. :rolleyes:

IMO the theory of evolution and its foundation - the age of the earth - are almost crucial to being an atheist. Nothing else explains the fantastic interlocking complexity of life save that its been going on for a vast length of time and is moulded by natural selection.

how do we have any clue of how old the earth is?!?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altagid

IMO the theory of evolution and its foundation - the age of the earth - are almost crucial to being an atheist. Nothing else explains the fantastic interlocking complexity of life save that its been going on for a vast length of time and is moulded by natural selection.

---

Thank you :rasta: I finally got an answer......

Intelligent design fails as a scientific explanation in three ways.

1. It's not falsifiable.
2. It's a sly attempt to shift the burden of proof
3. Like all creation stories it creates more problems than it solves and fails the test of parsimony

1. A scientific theory must be vulnerable to the data. This is fundamental. It means that at least in principle, there is some experiment one could do whose outcome might disprove the the theory. Simple example would be the theory that all cats are black - finding a single nonblack cat disproves this theory. What test could possibly disprove the theory of Intelligent Design?

2. "Irreducible complexity" boils down to asserting that since I cant think of another explanation it must be intelligent design. The person who takes this position can never say "there IS no other explanation" because this is almost impossible - like proving that every cat is black - when do you know that you have checked them all?

3. A good theory SIMPLIFIES not complicates. Intelligent design raises the obvious: who is the designer? why does he design? who made him? why was he made? who made the designers maker and why? .... In fact you now know less about the origins of life than before you adopted this theory.

alta, I would say the same about traditional evolution theories.

Well, firstly evolution is most definitely testable - it makes predictions about the distribution and nature of the fossil records which are borne out innumerable times. Secondly there is a vast amount of interlocking data to support it - there is no attempt to shift the burden of proof. Finally it does not posit new entities for its explanation - rather it relies on established natural forces. Life is no longer mysterious, it is a natural phenomenon.

The more archeologist dig the more traditional evolutionary theories prove to be false. I don't believe we will never know the true answer until we die.


Sadly unscrupulous people on both sides have ruined the debate (not in this thread but in general). Neither side accepts that the other can be truly objective. I just wish evolution theorists would admit that it takes at least some measure of faith to make some the leaps they make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mont974x4

The more archeologist dig the more traditional evolutionary theories prove to be false. I don't believe we will never know the true answer until we die. ....

---

For example?

BTW I assume you mean paleontologists? Archeologists are concerned with human history not evolution.

LOL actually I just meant folks who dig in the dirt for explanations.

example? there's no fossil record of any cross species evolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mont974x4

LOL actually I just meant folks who dig in the dirt for explanations.

example? there's no fossil record of any cross species evolution.

---

Actually, while I'm too stoned to remember right now, they found this fossil of this creature that was half bird and half reptile. but regardless, there is no evolution in the sense of "species A - turns to - species B", it's extremely small characteristics, often at the microscopic level, that are altered every so many years over millions of years. eventually after millions of years of this change, one species is not going to look like it did in the beginning. This is because of an indisputable fact: mutations (alterations in the genetic code) happen, and creatures with a geneticly advantageous attribute will survive and find mates to become dominant in the gene pool.

What is up with this word "evolutionist"? There is no such thing as "evolutionism", any more than there is such a thing as "gravitationism" or "quantum mechanicism" or "plate tectonicism". It is just an attempt by the creationists to portray the theory of evolution as an ideology rather than a scientific theory founded on empirical evidence.

These Christians who want to take the word of the Bible as more factual than what we can actually observe have isolated themselves from reality and want to isolate others from reality in the same way. They want to claim that the truth does not consist of facts but of opinions. If somebody believes something about the universe, they say, that makes it just as valid as anybody else's interpretation of reality. Of course this is a lie. The truth is the truth and that is that. There are not two sides to every issue, especially in science. When you make objective statements about reality, either it is true or it is not. And creationism most definitely is not.

If you need some proof that the Bible is not literally true, try this experiment. Go out on some cloudless night and look for the Andromeda Galaxy. It is the most distant object visible with the naked eye, about 2 million light years away. That means that it took that light 2 million years to reach us. If the Bible is literally true, then the universe is only a few thousand years old. Either God is deliberately lying to us by making the universe appear really old, or the Bible is false in its assertion that the world began just as the Stone Age was coming to an end. Your pick.

Want more proof? Walk into any hospital, and you'll find lots of patients with illnesses caused by bacteria and viruses. If the story of Noah's Ark is true, all of those bacteria and viruses must have been on the Ark infecting its inhabitants, or they would have died out. Noah and his family (who, by committing incest, somehow gave rise to all the diversity in the human race in just a few thousand years) must have had syphilis, herpes, gonorrhea, smallpox, influenza, polio, etc. Ignoring the fact that a loving God wouldn't have created these things in the first place, it's clear that Noah's flood didn't really happen. It's just a parable about forgiveness and redemption and so forth. A lot of the Bible is like that; just myths intended to teach people about morality and spirituality. To take it as literally true is to miss the point of the stories entirely. It's far better to look at the evidence we have and make a conclusion from that than it is to start out with the conclusion and try to cram the evidence into it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrdevious

Actually, while I'm too stoned to remember right now, they found this fossil of this creature that was half bird and half reptile. but regardless, there is no evolution in the sense of "species A - turns to - species B", it's extremely small characteristics, often at the microscopic level, that are altered every so many years over millions of years. eventually after millions of years of this change, one species is not going to look like it did in the beginning. This is because of an indisputable fact: mutations (alterations in the genetic code) happen, and creatures with a geneticly advantageous attribute will survive and find mates to become dominant in the gene pool.

---

Exactly. I've heard the creationist Kent Hovind try to debate this point, and he'll start out by saying something like "We only observe animals giving birth to the same kind", that is, we don't see organisms giving birth to new organisms of a different species. We only see minor changes happening from one generation to the next, and for some reason he thinks these minor changes can't build up among separated groups to the point where they can no longer interbreed.

I like to draw an analogy here with linguistic evolution for two reasons. First, I'm a linguistics major and I know a lot about how languages change over time. Second, linguistic change happens a lot faster than biological change, and we have observed the linguistic equivalent of speciation. We have historical documents showing how, over time, Latin slowly changed into the languages we now call French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, and Romanian, which are not mutually intelligible at all, even though at every point along the line parents were always capable of communicating with their children.

Of course it was never the case that two Latin-speaking parents gave birth to a French-speaking child, because the difference is not that clear-cut. Every generation spoke a slightly different form of the language than their parents did (this process is still going on; witness the replacement of "groovy" and "far out" with "chill" and "whack"). While the Roman Empire still existed, people would travel all over the Empire and this kept the language relatively uniform, in the same way that a species will not have much trouble interbreeding over a large area if the organisms can freely move around in it. We no longer fear England and America developing their own different languages because they communicate with each other all the time. This was not always the case, which is why we have slightly different versions of English, and if something stopped that communication it is likely that they would develop into two separate languages.

After the Roman Empire fell, very few people ever traveled more than a few miles away from their hometowns. People in Spain stopped communicating with people in France, who stopped communicating with people in Italy, and so forth. With this lack of communication, there was nothing to prevent each area from changing the language in their own unique ways. Over the centuries they gradually developed radically different dialects of Latin, often separated by geographical barriers like mountains and rivers. As the changes in each dialect built up over time, they became separate languages, giving rise to the variety of Romance languages we see today.

Species evolve in much the same way. If a group gets separated from the rest of the species by some geographical barrier and ceases to interbreed with it, that group will gradually change over time to adapt to its new environment. Eventually these tiny changes will build up to the point that the two groups will no longer be able to interbreed if they do come into contact with each other again. I can't think of anything that could prevent such a chain of events from happening, short of the intervening hand of Jehov—err, the "Intelligent Designer".

The creationists love to bring up the argument that there are "gaps" between organism A and organism B in the fossil record. And even when we do find organism C which fills the gap, they will claim that there are now two gaps: one between organisms A and C, and one between organisms C and B. And if we fill those two gaps with fossils, there are now four gaps for the creationists to complain about. They want us to come up with all forms of a species' evolutionary heritage somewhere in the fossil record. In reality, it is so rare that any organism gets fossilized and the fossil survives that such an expectation is absolutely ridiculous. Species change gradually. There is no cut-off point where we can say, "this organism was of species A and its child was of species B". That would be like looking at historical documents and trying to find the exact moment that Latin turned into French or looking at the color spectrum and trying to find the exact point where green turns into blue. You just can't do it, because it's a gradual change.