Science Disproves Evolution

[RobPA]

Disproving anothers theory does not prove your own.

Isint that the truth.

[Pahu78]

QUESTIONS ABOUT SCIENCE AND EVOLUTION

Two men were walking through the forest and happened across a glass ball lying on the carpet of twigs and fir needles. There were hardly any sounds other than the pair's own footsteps and certainly no signs of other people. But the very obvious inference from the evidence of the ball was that someone had put it there. Now one of these men was a scientist, trained in the modern view of origins, and the other a layman. The layman said, "What if the ball were larger, say ten feet around, would you still say that someone put it there?" Naturally, the scientist agreed that a larger ball would not affect his judgment. "Well, what if the ball were huge--a mile in diameter?" probed the layman. His friend responded that not only would someone have put it there, but that there should be an investigation to find out what caused the ball to be there. The layman then pursued one more question, ''What if the ball were as big as the whole universe? If little balls need causes, and bigger balls need causes, doesn't the biggest ball of all need a cause too?"

The Bible's views on the origins of the universe, first life, and new life forms, have caused many to falter in their acceptance of the Scriptures as truth. Modern science claims to have proven them wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. The theory of evolution is now posited as fact. Who is right, the Bible or science?

This problem will be dealt with by stating a basic argument, then applying that argument to the three areas of origins: the universe, first life, and new life forms. But before we embark, let's be sure that we understand what evolution is and how modern evolutionists view origins.

Most of us think of evolution as an invention of Charles Darwin in 1859, but it is really a very old view that has naturalistic philosophical roots. Non-theists say the universe is uncausedâ??it just always was and will be. All matter (if it exists in any sense) carries in it the principles of life. The idea of life arising from nonliving things is not a problem with this starting point. Indeed, it would be inevitable. Equally certain would be the progress from less complex life forms to more complex ones, since all things would be ever striving toward perfection and the realization of higher states.

Modern evolution does not look very much like this picture. Since many scientists are materialistic, they hold to the basic design but without the spiritual connotations. However, without the spiritual aspects guiding the system, there is no mechanism to explain the progress of species. Enter Charles Darwin. He provided a mechanism to make evolution work beginning with matter alone. He called it natural selection. Much of what Darwin taught has been rejected and surpassed by modern evolutionists, but the doctrine of natural selection has been maintained.

As to the origin of the universe, classic evolutionists have said that the world was uncaused. Carl Sagan has expressed this in his saying, ''The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be." [Carl Sagan, Cosmos (New York: Random House, 1980), p. 4] This view is still being taught by those who have not kept up with new discoveries in cosmology (study of the universe), Evolutionists also teach that life first began as a result of chemical reactions in what Darwin called a ''warm little pool." Research done in the last thirty years has shown that it is possible to generate some amino acids necessary for life using only a few basic gases, water, and an electrical charge. This has encouraged the view that life arose from nonliving matter. As to new life forms, these are said to have evolved through natural selection. As the conditions of the earth changed, animals adapted new characteristics to meet the new challenges. Those who adapted survived and those that did not passed into extinction. The great variety of extinct animals found in fossils and their similarities to living species are used to confirm this thesis. If virtually all scientists agree on these principles and have the evidence to prove it, can we still believe the Bible?

[From When Skeptics Ask by Geisler & Brooks]

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

we, the people, of all of reality are the created and the creator, be we human, insect, plant, animal, or mineral, we all contribute to the reality we live in.

we constantly change, we constantly grow, we constantly create, and we constantly die.

that is what evolution is, that is what god is, that is what creation is, that is what destruction is, that is LIFE...

[Pahu78]

THE BASIC ARGUMENT AGAINST EVOLUTION

Let it first be said that we need not argue on religious grounds. We do not need to simply stand firm crying, ''The Bible said it; I believe it; that settles it!" That attitude can be good, but there are good scientific grounds to reject evolution and believe in Creation. In fact, it is all based on the whole idea of what science is.

Science is based on causality; every event has a cause. Things don't happen willy-nilly. Even if we can't know specifically what particular cause produced a certain event, we can say what kind of cause it must have been because of the kinds of effects we see today. The idea that whatever caused some effect in the past will cause the same effect in the present is called the principle of uniformity. All science is based on finding causes using these two principles: causality and uniformity.

When scientific principles were first being developed into the scientific method, scientists like Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Issac Newton, and William Kelvin made a distinction between primary and secondary causes. A primary cause was a first cause that explained singularitiesâ??events that only happened once and had no natural explanation. Secondary causes were thought of as natural causes and laws that govern the way things normally operate. Unfortunately, some scientists began using supernatural causes to explain natural irregularities like earthquakes and meteors. When the truth was learned about these things, scientists eliminated primary causes from consideration altogether and sought to explain everything in terms of natural causes. But just as it was wrong for super-naturalists to explain ordinary events using primary causes, it is also wrong for the naturalist to explain all singularities by natural causes.

[From When Skeptics Ask by Geisler & Brooks]

[Delta9 UK]

THE BASIC ARGUMENT AGAINST EVOLUTION

Oh, hang on - I don't have one. Let me copy paste some shite from a book instead.

This is getting VERY old.

I could pick it apart but, why bother - you are not actually interested having any sort of "discussion" are you Pahu? Just spamming the forum with junk.

You posted the exact same crap here
in fact you posted it a lot

I like this part best:

Two men were walking through the forest

...when they happened upon a large bear. One knelt to pray, the other
knelt and tightened his Nikes. "What are you doing?" cried the
other. "You can't outrun this bear!"

"I don't have to," said the other. "I only have to outrun you."

Natural selection FTW!

Lulz

[psychocat]

I like this part best:

Two men were walking through the forest

...when they happened upon a large bear. One knelt to pray, the other
knelt and tightened his Nikes. "What are you doing?" cried the
other. "You can't outrun this bear!"

"I don't have to," said the other. "I only have to outrun you."

Natural selection FTW!

Lulz

True natural selection would be what I would do in that situation...
I would boot him in the leg just to make sure I could outrun him. :thumbsup:

I am a natural survivor and predator.

[IAmKowalski]

This thread amazes me. It seems like each time I click on "New Posts", it's back.... coming up tomorrow: "Science Disproves Gravity".

[MadSativa]

Even if every single thing you said in your post was proven true, which I really don't believe, this one line, I am absolutely sure, is not proven or even able to be proven.

"Only evil deals in Absolutes"-Some Jedi said this

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

True natural selection would be what I would do in that situation...
I would boot him in the leg just to make sure I could outrun him. :thumbsup:

I am a natural survivor and predator.

Just be sure the other guy isnt me, cuz i'd bite back and feed you to the bear... oh, excuse me, i meant fight back...



then again, i might actually try to befriend the bear and hunt you down with it's help. THAT'S FOR BOOTING ME IN THE LEG MOTHAFUKKA!

[psychocat]

A bear and a wolf to deal with ..............
I'm kinda getting the feeling that I might just be toast. :wtf: