Here are the two premises on which various theories of evolution are based.
1 – The evolutionary formula for making a universe:
Nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 92 natural elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order.
2 – The evolutionary formula for making life:
Dirt + water + time = living creatures.
Evolutionists theorize that the above two formulas can enable everything about us to make itself—with the exception of man-made things, such as automobiles or buildings. Complicated things, such as wooden boxes with nails in them, require thought, intelligence, and careful workmanship. But everything else about us in nature (such as hummingbirds and the human eye) is declared to be the result of accidental mishaps, random confusion, and time. You will not even need raw materials to begin with. They make themselves too.
Am I correct in stating the above? Is it logical? Are these theories truly scientific keeping in mind that for a scientific theory to be proven it must be observed, tested and possible to recreate? If evolutionists believe in such theories, isn’t evolution classified as a religion?
"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a phantasy" (*Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229).
“As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?”—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1866), p. 139.
I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a Christian but I wanted to put my two cents worth in anyway.
What you said in your comments makes perfect sense. The concept of evolution is only a theory and will always be only a theory since there’s no way to prove that life just happened by some astronomically improbable coincidence in a primordial soup.
As you pointed out, if something as complicated as a life form (even single celled life forms are quite complex) can "just happen", why didn’t any less complex obects "just happen" as well? The different metals that can be found on earth are the product of natural forces but it took an intelligent mind to produce something as simple as a fork or spoon.
Here’s something else to consider. If all life started in the same place (the "primordial soup") as single celled organisms, then evolved into different lifeforms and those life forms continued to evolve, culminating in intelligent, civilized, free thinking, clothes-wearing, tool-using humans, why are we the only species to evolve this far? Out of the millions of different plants, mammals, reptiles, insects etc., only man has the above qualities. No other species even comes close.
No other plant or animal has ever developed the written word. None have a conscienousness enabling them to even realize they exist (I think, therefore I am).
No other lifeforms have philosophers, doctors, poets, inventors or theologians.
There isn’t a single species that can even be remotely compared to man, other than, in some cases, a somewhat similar humanoid body type.
Why have no other animals invented the wheel?
Why aren’t there any animals using some type of "designed" tools? (a few have learned to use rocks or other natural items as tools but that’s as close as they get)
Why aren’t there any other life forms contemplating the meaning of life?
Why is it that the next most intelligent species are animals like dolphins and whales?
Why are humans so far advanced compared to the rest of the plant and animal kingdom.
And if the theory was true, why are there still apes in the world if the ones that supposedly evolved into human were the only ones "more fit" to survive. There would have been no need for us to evolve since apes seems to be surviving just fine.
"But everything else about us in nature (such as hummingbirds and the human eye) is declared to be the result of accidental mishaps, random confusion, and time. "
Bzzt. Wrong.
Your problem is that you’re getting your information from creationist propaganda sites. Try learning about evolution rather than jumping right to trying to disprove it. With some effort you can learn to avoid this kind of elementary error.
References :
have absolutely no clue what your talking about.
References :
The only system that claims ‘nothing’ as the default state is Creationism.
Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only their state can be changed.
Therefore everything existed always, in one form or another, and the Laws of the Universe determined their development.
Your formula = Me stupid. Me not know. Me think God do it. Me make poopy.
References :
More than I want to know. Evolution is scientific theory and some fact, but I believe it is the design of God. I cannot do nothing plus nothing…because to me that formula says…NOTHING. So I go God plus Something is life.
The Ol’ Hippie Jesus Freak
Grace and Peace
Peg
References :
Obviously you know nothing about the marred theory of evolution and there is no cult of evolutionists. Scientific theory has just supplanted fairy tales.
References :
Evolution is a journey back in time in which we learn more as time goes by.
It is NOT a recipe for CONCRETE!
References :
this is the premise how God created everything.
"Everything be created"
And that’s more plausible? Maybe. But it’s not just dirt + water + time, if only it was that easy. It’s more like dirt + water + air + time + deaths of billions of failed species.
I have no problem with you saying these things about evolution, as long as it’s not political.
References :
Your "formulas" are in no way scientific and are not how biologists define evolution. "Dirt + water + time = living creatures."?? What exactly do you mean by "dirt" here? Soil? Molecules?
As for that last part, you’re right. Darwin had no understanding of how evolution worked, since genes and DNA had not been discovered in his time. Now we know better than Darwin.
References :
I really hope you’re not seriously basing your life’s beliefs on those strawman arguments.
References :
You’ve asked this before.
1.
First, evolution has nothing to do with the formation of the universe. Second, no one asserts the universe arose from nothing.
2.
First, evolution has nothing to do with the formation of life. Second, your equation oversimplifies and leaves out critical concepts in the field of abiogenesis (which this equation is really aimed at).
Further –
You quote Darwin doubting his hypotheses. Every good scientist questions his hypotheses. In order to test a hypothesis, you must find a way a way to test it so that it is falsifiable.
Einstein did this with relativity, by realizing that stars around the edge of the sun would be dislocated slightly during an eclipse … so he arranged to observe total eclipses of the sun, and measure the position of stars near it. Had the stars been exactly where they normally were, his hypothesis would have been wrong.
Einstein could not have forseen some of the development in quantum physics — we know now that Relativity is at best incomplete and at worst, just plain wrong. We know this because every standard model predicts a particle of spin 2, mass 0, and charge 0. Relativity requires gravity to be a geometric warping of space time, not particulate. This difference between digital quantum physics and analogue relativistic physics proves the incompleteness of Relativity.
[Hey, at least I didn't blow my cool like last time... *g* I've slept well since then.]
References :
You profile picture cracks me up.
References :
As usual, you are attempting to disprove the theory of evolution by applying it to something that it was never intended to explain.
It does not claim to show how the universe came into existence.
Evolution is the study of the adaptability of life on this planet, and is still the best theory running, despite repeated attempts by people who believe that human beings were created from dust (dirt+god=humans) to disprove it.
It will continue to be the universal standard in science and biology until someone comes along with something better.
References :
Ask this in the science section, retard. Asking in the R&S means that you don’t want a real answer.
YOU said:
"1 – The evolutionary formula for making a universe:
Nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 92 natural elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order."
===========================
This has nothing to do with evolution, but I’ll answer it anyways. If the universe is cyclic (which it probably is) then our universe is an inevitability, no matter how unlikely, it will still happen this way infinitely many times. It’s not a cause to invent a god when we don’t know what fills the gap. Just wait a few more weeks, the good people at CERN are looking for the Higgs Boson, and if they find it, you’ll be dead in the water. Also, try a little research. Read up on the string theory, and its cyclic universe models, and research quantum fluctuation. Qflux allows something to come from nothing.
YOU wrote:
"2 – The evolutionary formula for making life:
Dirt + water + time = living creatures."
==========================
First of all, that’s bio-genesis, not evolution. Second, it’s a little more complicated than that. You’ve also forgotten the essential energy component to the equation. Besides, in the primordial soup of early earth, long, complex hydrocarbons known as "organic molecules" formed naturally. Cell membranes are made of phospho-lipid bilayers, which also occur naturally. The combination of the two, plus a little energy can go a long way.
DARWIN wrote:
"“As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?”"
===========================
Well sure, but punctuated equilibrium wasn’t a theory back then. That’s number one. Number two is that the fossil record was very, very small in Darwin’s time. That was a hundred and fifty years ago. Any quote about the fossil record from that time is irrelevant, because the fossil record has changed so much.
YOU wrote:
"Complicated things, such as wooden boxes with nails in them, require thought, intelligence, and careful workmanship. But everything else about us in nature (such as hummingbirds and the human eye) is declared to be the result of accidental mishaps, random confusion, and time. You will not even need raw materials to begin with."
=========================
What a terrible false analogy. Boxes have no method of reproduction or mutation. They can’t evolve or improve themselves. Hummingbirds and the human eye aren’t random, they’re the result of evolutionary pressure on an organism. Research the theory of evolution before presenting such terrible straw men.
@the last bit of that: what are you talking about? The raw materials were on early earth, and were most likely created 13 billion years ago by the collision of two m-branes, or they have always existed. Besides, quantum fluctuation allows something to come from nothing.
References :
Strictly speaking, religion is defined as a belief in a greater power that cannot be proven by scientific means.
Evolution can, and indeed, has been proven. (Even Pope John Paul II said evolution was fact.)
But why do so many people take such a black or white attitude towards the subject? Believe it has to be one way or the other? Isn’t it possible both sides of the issue are correct? I think so.
References :
A lot of time passed since Darwin’s death. Stronger minds have studied the seed of evolution and had come up with remarkable discoveries and theories. Darwin’s words are not the end definition regarding the creation of life. Indeed, more intelligent scientist then he have expounded and corrected his thoughts.
Religion and science does not necessarily have to be in conflict. Check out Theist Evolution.
References :
We all know that accountants (yes, those boring people who keep the books) can create a whole real universe out of nothing and they do that regularly.
They start with nothing but that doesn’t stop them to write assets and liabilities on the balance sheet. Then they use these assets to finance investments. And soon they have everything created to run the world.
References :
There we go again Creationists spewing stuff they have no idea about. I’m not going to get into debate with you as you obviously dont have the capacity to reason and use logic. Please take a moment and have a read of his theory if at the end of it you still believe in creationism then I would love to hear your counter argument but don’t cut from some other moron and paste it here – it just shows that you are too lazy to think for yourself.
References :
I agree.
Would you use a banana to cut wood?course not.So why use science to try and validate God.
That dawkins is a flip flopping nut.
.
References :
Well, I couldn’t have said it any better myself … and I pride myself on being able to present pretty convincing. powerful arguments that beg response – whether that be positive or negative, nevertheless, one can rarely read arguments I present without being compelled to respond in some way.
I find your argument, its order, and thought very compelling!
WELL DONE, MY FRIEND.
You might very well be interested in gaining a copy of Denis Towers’ book, published via Xulonpress.com, TWO BIRDS … ONE STONE!
It is absolutely brilliant in disproving evolution via a new scientific discovery that meets all your criteria for science – is observable in real time, can be tested and recreatable.
Good luck with it.
References :
I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a Christian but I wanted to put my two cents worth in anyway.
What you said in your comments makes perfect sense. The concept of evolution is only a theory and will always be only a theory since there’s no way to prove that life just happened by some astronomically improbable coincidence in a primordial soup.
As you pointed out, if something as complicated as a life form (even single celled life forms are quite complex) can "just happen", why didn’t any less complex obects "just happen" as well? The different metals that can be found on earth are the product of natural forces but it took an intelligent mind to produce something as simple as a fork or spoon.
Here’s something else to consider. If all life started in the same place (the "primordial soup") as single celled organisms, then evolved into different lifeforms and those life forms continued to evolve, culminating in intelligent, civilized, free thinking, clothes-wearing, tool-using humans, why are we the only species to evolve this far? Out of the millions of different plants, mammals, reptiles, insects etc., only man has the above qualities. No other species even comes close.
No other plant or animal has ever developed the written word. None have a conscienousness enabling them to even realize they exist (I think, therefore I am).
No other lifeforms have philosophers, doctors, poets, inventors or theologians.
There isn’t a single species that can even be remotely compared to man, other than, in some cases, a somewhat similar humanoid body type.
Why have no other animals invented the wheel?
Why aren’t there any animals using some type of "designed" tools? (a few have learned to use rocks or other natural items as tools but that’s as close as they get)
Why aren’t there any other life forms contemplating the meaning of life?
Why is it that the next most intelligent species are animals like dolphins and whales?
Why are humans so far advanced compared to the rest of the plant and animal kingdom.
And if the theory was true, why are there still apes in the world if the ones that supposedly evolved into human were the only ones "more fit" to survive. There would have been no need for us to evolve since apes seems to be surviving just fine.
References :