An atheist's journey to find a place in the world.
Interested, That video proves you have a dogma which you claimed you do not have. Also no offense to you but it proves your just simply an ignorant person who claims us Christians sit in pews and listen to pastors and are brain dead followers when if fact your doing just that listening to that Moron.He said in the video and I quote if you have to artificially alter the evidence to make your idea work you are wrong and that is not science.Atheistic scientists have been busted publicly over the years for creating people or things to try and prove what they believe, Example, the pilt down man. That was made by the evolution scientists, Not Christians trying to prove evolution to be true.It has been proven with fossil records that they have foot prints of humans and dinosaurs walking together yet the evolutions wont look at the evidence.The guy in the video was speaking about layers in the dirt proving a time line, it has been proven with fossil evidence that trees were standing straight up buried in what is viewed as many millions of years of layers, your video buddy cannot explain that.Or the many wolly mammoths that were found with tropical vegetationFound in it's belly. That video is so one sided and stupid, and you tell me I believe with out really looking into the evidence yet your the one doing just that. Rick b
Interested,I haven't been here in a while, so I am dropping by and leaving a comment.From the video: [If evolution is true] The fossil record should display a complete temporal stratification and a very, very timely order in which things will appear.There is a lack of convincing evidence to back up Darwin's claim that there is a common origin to all life. Evolution would require billions of mutations that have caused a true increase in genetic complexity, but the fossil record shows nothing of the sort. In a letter to Harvard professor Asa Gray, Charles Darwin wrote, "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science." And in fact, Darwin was right---Science has failed to substantiate Darwin's claim that all creatures have a common ancestor. True science has shown that the theory of evolution is wrong. The evidence has been overwhelmingly in favor of Creationism. Rather than using the scientific method, evolutionists rely on pure speculation and wild imagination. The fossil record shows that the majority, if not all, of the world's 40 phyla sprang forth fully formed, without any transitionary fossils that preceded them. There is no evidence of a gradual evolution. The fossil record has failed to substantiate the claims of Darwinian Evolution. Darwin himself knew it was a problem, but he speculated that future discoveries would support his theory. But Darwin was mistaken, because they haven't. If Darwinian Evolution were correct, we should have found millions of transitionary fossils already. Again, from the video:Now, if Intelligent Design or Creationism is true, we wouldn't expect this at all. We would expect to find dinosaurs with humans...all at the exact same time.As Rick mentioned, fossilized dinosaur footprints have been found alongside fossilized human footprints. Naturally, evolutionists strenuously try to completely discredit this, because this destroys the theory of evolution completely.Examples:Taylor Trail - A series of 14 human footprints with at least 134 dinosaur tracks in the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas. McFall Trail - A series of 15 human footprints on the Upper Taylor Platform in the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas. Ryals Track - A human footprint across a dinosaur footprint, about 30 feet from the Taylor Platform in the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas. The Morris Track - in the bed of the Paluxy River, downstream from the Taylor Trail at the Dougherty Site. While some of the detail eroded over a period of months, when it was first discovered, it was described as virtually perfect.Burdick Track - A human footprint from Cross Branch, a tributary of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas. New Mexico Track - One of several very shallow but almost perfect human tracks found in the mountains of New Mexico in the Permian (supposedly before the dinosaurs).Large Cat Track - Just as devastating to evolutionary theory, this large mammal track is from Cross Branch, a tributary of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas. Scientists may speculate about the past or future, but they can only actually observe the present. Obviously, then, the widespread assumption that Darwinian or neo-Darwinian evolution is an established fact of science is absolutely false. Therefore, Darwinian evolution can only be correctly labeled as a belief...a subjective philosophy of origins...the religion of many scientists. Despite this fact, many (though by no means all) of today's scientists and teachers still insist that evolution is an established fact of science.
Even though spontaneous generation was already disproved over 100 years ago, lets nevertheless look at the probability of, say, a system composed of only 200 integrated parts, which is primitively simple compared to living systems. The probability of forming such an ordered system on the first trial is 10 to the 375th power. Now, there are only 10 to the 80th power electrons in the known universe. So, assuming that none of the first trial groups work, lets continue trying over and over again at a generous rate of 10 to the 9th power trials per second. And, to give the evolutionists every possible advantage, lets keep on trying for 30 billion years (which would be 10 to the 18th power seconds), since this is the presumed age of the universe. But even granting all that, we find that the maximum number of trial combinations that could be attempted is still only 5 x 10 to the 104th power, which is far too short of the needed 10 to the 375th power trial combinations required for success. And remember, this is merely for a 200-part system. So, even for a primitively-simple 200-part system, the chance that the integrated parts could develop by mere chance is, for all practical purposes, nonexistent. And, if an evolutionist makes the defense that such a simplistic system would not be suddenly organized all at once, but would develop gradually, it becomes even more problematic, since the number would then be much larger than the 200 factorial, and the chance of such a system developing by a step-by-step process is far less than its chance of developing all at once (which was already, for all practical purposes, a zero probability). And yet a 200-part system is ridiculously primitive compared with living systems. NASA research has demonstrated that the most basic type of protein molecule that could be classified as 'living' is composed of at least 400 linked amino acids. Each amino acid, in turn, is made up of a specific arrangement of 4 or 5 chemical elements, and each chemical element is itself a unique combination of protons, neutrons and electrons. Wysong calculated the probability of forming the proteins and DNA for the smallest self-replicating entity to be 1 in 10 to the 167,626th power, even when granting astronomically generous amounts of time and reagents (substances or compounds that are added to a system in order to bring about a chemical reaction or are added to see if a reaction occurs). Who could imagine what the chance of formation of a more complex structure or organ such as the cerebral cortex in the human brain would be? It contains over 10 billion cells, each of which is carefully arranged according to a specific design, and each of which is fantastically complex in itself.
Interested,A while back Jeff brought up the issue of creatures, Bugs and things like leaves being imbedded in amber, yet dated millions of years old. If Eveloution is true, why is their no major, or even minor changes in these things over the millions of years? Rick b
Jeff you said “There is a lack of convincing evidence to back up Darwin's claim that there is a common origin to all life.” However, this theory is now generally accepted by biologists.As Rick mentioned, fossilized dinosaur footprints have been found alongside fossilized human footprints but “A few individuals continue to promote the Paluxy "man tracks" or alleged human tracks in pre-Tertiary rocks from other localities, but such claims are not considered credible by either mainstream scientists or major creationist groups.” http://paleo.cc/paluxy/paluxy.htmI can’t address the rest of your comments Jeff because I really don’t have the time. However, I do think that a simple Google search on these points you make will find many more answers; if you care to look. One point I would like to make is in response to Rick’s accusation that scientist lie about their findings and cover up the truth. Science and its findings which are reported in Journals have been tested and reviewed by many. It is not reasonable to think that they would not expose and conspiracy to cover up or forge findings. In addition, I believe that scientist would love to prove the existence of a divine creator. Just imagine the publicity, the fame and the fortune that would come along with that discovery. It is of no consequence to science if believers believe. Science is out to learn, discover and PUBLISH. It is how they survive. They have no reason to plot against religion. On the other hand, religion has an agenda; religion must propagate, proliferate and reproduce in order to survive.
"Who could imagine" Who indeed?
Jeff et. al. I just found this posting that I believe addresses the "scientific" information you provided. http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?p=2112393#p2112393
In addition, I believe that scientist would love to prove the existence of a divine creator.I completely disagree. If the existence of a Creator was proved in some way that was completely irrefutable, many people would still refuse to believe it. Likewise, many, and probably most, scientists would continue to try to refute it. Why? Because that would mean that they would then be ultimately accountable for all of their thoughts, words and actions. That would mean that there would be an ultimate Judge over them. And people, generally speaking, do not want to face up to that reality.
I can’t address the rest of your comments Jeff because I really don’t have the time.That's fine. Generally speaking, I'll mostly leave the point-by-point debate to Rick. I've done that in the past, and I have found that merely ends up to be an endless loop. We could argue for the next ten thousand years (if we were able to live that long, which we're not, of course), without either of us changing our viewpoints. So, I try to take a more casual attitude (though I admit, I don't always succeed). The thing is, even if a Darwinian Evolutionist comes to believe in 6-day Creation (which would seem impossible unless they first came to believe in the existence of God), in the end, it would not matter at all, unless they turned their life over to Jesus and became born again, because they would still end up in Hell without Christ. That's the important thing.But concerning Richard Dawkins, check out this light-hearted, humorous video:Richard Dawkins Mocks Banana Man
This video is interesting.After a debate, an Atheist admits he can no longer believe in Darwinian Evolution after hearing that the fossil record completely lacks Darwin's predicted transitional forms. (Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort's debate with the Blasphemy Challenge group on the existence of God aired on ABC's Nightline 05-09-2007.) Atheist questions Darwinism after hearing Kirk Cameron
Kirk Cameron lost his faith in atheism
Nothing Created Everything Promo
Here is where you can order Darwin's Origin of Species for only $4.99.
"Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, published on 24 November 1859, is a seminal work of scientific literature, considered to be the foundation of evolutionary biology. Its full title was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. For the sixth edition of 1872, the short title was changed to The Origin of Species."From Wikipedia.
Richard Weikart is professor of modern European history at California State University, Stanislaus. He has lived in Germany over five years, including one year on a Fulbright Fellowship. He has published two previous books, including Socialist Darwinism: Evolution in German Socialist Thought from Marx to Bernstein (1999), as well as articles in German Studies Review, Journal of the History of Ideas, Isis, European Legacy, and History of European Ideas. In From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, released in 2004 (paperback edition in 2006) with Palgrave Macmillan in New York, a major publisher of historical scholarship, Richard Weikart explains the revolutionary impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality. He demonstrates that many leading Darwinian biologists and social thinkers in Germany believed that Darwinism overturned traditional Judeo-Christian and Enlightenment ethics, especially those pertaining to the sacredness of human life. Many of these thinkers supported moral relativism, yet simultaneously exalted evolutionary "fitness" (especially in terms of intelligence and health) as the highest arbiter of morality. Weikart concludes that Darwinism played a key role not only in the rise of eugenics, but also in euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination, all ultimately embraced by the Nazis. He convincingly makes the disturbing argument that Hitler built his view of ethics on Darwinian principles rather than nihilistic ones. From Darwin to Hitler is a provocative yet balanced work that should encourage a rethinking of the historical impact that Darwinism had on the course of events in the twentieth century.Here is a video of the audio giving a talk about his book:From Darwin to Hitler
Hitler used Evolutionary Theory to Justify the Holocaust
Jeff I don't see your point. I think you are saying that belief in evolution leads to genocide...?Please...that is not an argument worth having.I must reiterate..evolution is NOT a belief like religion. Evolution is a scientific theory for which there is a multitude of empirical evidence. I cannot present it myself but I have provided many links to experts.When I said that scientist would love to prove the existence of god I meant it. As you know, 50% - 80% (depending on who you ask) of the country, believe in the existence of god. If a scientist could find empirical evidence for god and provide repeatable experiments he or she would become so famous he/she could write his/her own ticket. I can't imagine that a scientist would try to cover up such a piece of information.
interested said I must reiterate..evolution is NOT a belief like religion. Evolution is a scientific theory for which there is a multitude of empirical evidence. I cannot present it myself but I have provided many links to experts.Interested, no matter how much you want to believe evolution is not a faith will not change the facts. evolution and all the belief's along those lines are a stronger faith than any religion.You said many times before, Christians are mindless followers of pastors and church's. I gotta say, that that might be true in some cases but not all, but you and many people who believe in evolution are just as blind and mindless followers of science.you told Jeff Evolution is a scientific theory for which there is a multitude of empirical evidence. I cannot present it myself but I have provided many links to experts.How can you simply trust that these people know what they are saying is true? You have faith they are correct, you cannot defend your belief with out looking to the so called "Science guys and experts" But how do you know they really are experts and now what they are saying is true? It's all based upon faith and wanting to believe.Interested said to me One point I would like to make is in response to Rick’s accusation that scientist lie about their findings and cover up the truth. Science and its findings which are reported in Journals have been tested and reviewed by many. It is not reasonable to think that they would not expose and conspiracy to cover up or forge findings.Really? Some how I think you do not want to look into these hoaxes from the people you place so much blind trust into. But here is a link that exposes all the hoaxes. I would love to hear you explain about how come they were never openly exposed by the science community. http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter9.phpI believe it's because they have an agenda to push. Like in the Movie from Ben Stien, it was admitted people who believe in Evolution, then convert to Christianity, were fired or worse, how is that being fair and not pushing a one sided agenda. Many of these more serious problems you cannot answer, if your great science gods have no answer then neither do you, yet you sit their and tell me it's not faith and that I am the mindless stupid one. Please, we both no better, if you cannot speak for yourself and they must do it for you, then how are you being totally fair and honest? Rick b
Jeff I don't see your point. I think you are saying that belief in evolution leads to genocide...?Please...that is not an argument worth having.No, even the video points out that is not the case. I must reiterate..evolution is NOT a belief like religion.I disagree. It cannot be reproduced in the laboratory, and any evidence which seems contradictory to the theory is thrown out. In addition, any scientists or professors who present arguments or theories which go against Darwinian Evolution are either silenced or fired. Likewise, any scientific papers which present evidence and data which go against the Darwinian theory of Evolution are not allowed or accepted, but are tossed aside and censored. This is not science. This is a belief system based on faith.
If a scientist could find empirical evidence for god and provide repeatable experiments he or she would become so famous he/she could write his/her own ticket. I can't imagine that a scientist would try to cover up such a piece of information.Again, I disagree. But when I say "scientists," I am not referring to those scientists who are born-again Christians or who believe in Creationism. I am referring only to those scientists who are Atheists. I am convinced that they would have absolutely no interest in trying to prove that God exists, and in addition, if such proof were ever found, I am convinced that they would deny it with all their might.
Interested said When I said that scientist would love to prove the existence of god I meant it. As you know, 50% - 80% (depending on who you ask) of the country, believe in the existence of god. If a scientist could find empirical evidence for god and provide repeatable experiments he or she would become so famous he/she could write his/her own ticket.Jeff said he does not agree with you on this point and I agree with Him not you, Here is why I say that. Their is evidence thats Noahs Ark exists and people have found where it is at, Well guess what, People "Scientists" are not trying to prove it exists so they can write books and write their own ticket, they are trying to prove it does not exist or are simply trying to avoid the issue. That is why I do not agree with you. Rick b
You don't have to agree; just sit back and watch.
Sit back and watch what? Rick b
Post a Comment