Friday, December 30, 2011

Why Evolution isTrue

I'm posting for you. You know who you are and you know I know that you come here often and never comment. I hope you will watch all of this video and give it some thought.
And for everyone else...well 'nuff said.


rick b said...

I posted this once before and will post it again. Evolution is a lie pushed by people, But lets be fair and show Scientists who believe in evolution and not creation and ask the question, Why do people who believe in Evolution show only quotes claiming evolution is true, but never shows quotes of the Scientists doubting and questioning the facts? More scientists have doubts and these doubts never get posted. Why is that?

we read about a new find, soft tissue in dinosaur bones showing they are not millions of years old.
It was in the Discover Magazine 2006 April

Mary Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery:

She is talking about a coworker of hers.
in the April 2006 discover Magazine Mays says,

I had one reviewer tell me that he didn't care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn't possible.

I wrote back and said, well, what Data would convince you?

and he said, None.

Schweitzer goes onto say,
I am a slam dunk scientist, [Schweitzer] says.
I would have much rather held the paper back until we had reams and reams of Data. But without publishing a journal article, she says, she could never have hoped for funding.

Sadly it boils down to "follow the Money" She would rather not have said anything, but if she said nothing, she would have received nothing, but on the other hand, she could have lost her job speaking this out loud.

Then in the Book, How to build a dinosaur by Horner and Gorman, pg 80-81 2008 we read,

When Mary S was first working on this material, she called me up to say she had found osteocytes.

osteocytes are the things that make bone grow.

Horner replied with,
I assumed she meant the spaces where the osteocytes would have been, which is what I suggested.

Mary said: No Jack, actually we have the cells and they have filipodia and they have nuclei.

Horner said: Mary, the freaking creationists are just going to love you.

Mary said, Jack, it's your dinosaur.

rick b said...

Here is another quote by a famed and big name Scientist who believes in evolution. Yet he clearly goes against what these guys in the video say, because he claims it is not true, yet despite the lack of evidence he still chooses to believe.

Again, why are quotes likes these never posted by people who teach evolution? Like I said, Lets be fair and give all or nothing, both sides not just one side. Rick

Interested said...

Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”

Read more:

Interested said...

Did Dinosaur Soft Tissues Still Survive? New Research Challenges Notion
ScienceDaily (July 29, 2008) — Paleontologists in 2005 hailed research that apparently showed that soft, pliable tissues had been recovered from dissolved dinosaur bones, a major finding that would substantially widen the known range of preserved biomolecules.

But new research challenges that finding and suggests that the supposed recovered dinosaur tissue is in reality biofilm – or slime.
"I believed that preserved soft tissues had been found, but I had to change my opinion," said Thomas Kaye, an associate researcher at the Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture at the University of Washington. "You have to go where the science leads, and the science leads me to believe that this is bacterial biofilm."

rick b said...

Charles Darwin, in a letter to his friend J.D. Hooker in 1871, speculated about life beginning in a "warm little pond". Many scientists, however, now believe that life may have begun in extreme environments such as undersea hydrothermal vents and volcanoes, with their abundance of chemicals and engery. While many scientists have attempted to test this hypothesis in the laboratory, deamer was the first to do so in the field.

The results were strikingly negative: life did not emerge, no membranes assembled themselves, and no amino acids combined into proteins. Instead, the added chemicals quickly vanished, mostly absorbed by clay particles in the pool. Instead of supporting life, the bubbling pool had snuffed it out before it began.

Later, Deamer repeated the same experiment at Lassen Volcanic National Park in northern Californa, with the same Negative result.

What went wrong?
The explantion is simple, Said Deamer, who presented his findings in February at a meeting of the royal society of London. Conditions in geothermal springs and similar extreme environments just do not favor membrane formation.

We have to face up to the biophysical facts of life, Deamer said. Hot, acidic hydrothermal systems are not conducive to self-assembly processes.
Deamer has been in this field for 20 years.
USCS Currents online, vol.10, no. 35;May 1-7 2006

rick b said...

Ardi Discovery:

But Despite the excitement from the paleontology community, another group of researchers, many of them with advanced degrees in science, are unimpressed by Ardi, who they believe is just another ape-- an ape of indeterminate age, they add, and an ape who cannot be an ancestor of modern man for a range of reasons, including one of singular importance: God created man in one day, and evolution is a fallacy.

Russell Goldman, ABC oct 7th,2009

The point of this is, it is from ABC news. Since when do they defend or push creation views?

rick b said...

I have said before and will say again. Some, not all but some Scientists need to lie to prove evolution.

In May, Hwang and his team published a landmark report in the journal of science announcing that they had created 11 lines, or colonies, of cloned human embryonic stem cells. This achievement made South Korea a leader in this field of research. Elizabeth Weise,

BUT A co-author of the report, Roh Sung ll, Told Koren television and newspapers that Hwang told him Thursday that most of the supposedly cloned lines were fakes and the fate of the others is unclear.

USA Today, December 15, 2005.

This tells me Charles ha an agenda when he came up with the idea of God not being real.

Charles Darwin said "The Old Testament, from it manifestly false history of the earth, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindus, or the Beliefs of any barbarian. The New Testament is a damnable doctrine. [I can] hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianty to be true". Origan of species

I found this funny because it is so true.

A Chinese paleontologist lectures around the world saying that recent fossil finds in his country are inconsistent with Darwin theory of evloution. His reason: The major animal groups appear abruptly in the rocks over a relatively short time, rather than evolving gradually from a common ancestor as Darwin's theory predicts...

When this conclusion upsets American Scientists, he wryly comments: "In China we can critcize Darwin but not the goverment. In America you can critcize the governmaent but not Darwin.

The Wall Street Journal, August 16,1999

Anonymous said...

I just want to tell you, Interested, that I respect you for having the determination and patience to debate and educate people. I get a headache from seeing all the logic fallacies present in all the counter arguments shoved to you in the comment section.

The people that sees only what they want to see, the people that is seemingly so intelligent and determined, yet refuse to take a step back and look at everyone's theory.

You see this asked a lot, "have you even read the bible?" perhaps you should also add "have you read the countless scientific research paper providing empirical evidence of their findings after you tell them you've read the bible cover to cover.

There are so much assumptions, everyone seems so eager to jump on to the ship of supporting their side of the theory without actually questioning it objectively, but that's just how people operate when then firmly believe in something right? Like that chinese scientist, how accurate was his studies? Appeal to Authority, that's a pretty legitimate logic fallacy. Did he have an ulterior motive in what he says?

I am an agnostic, and a firm believer in the scientific process. Perhaps it's something in my personality that makes me how I am. The nature is full of awe and wonder, I just can't help but think of possibilities. Established religions and all the scandals, lies, thickheadedness is not my thing, however, and I just want to say again, thank you for setting the record straight, regardless of how many people will listen.

rick b said...

Nice of you to say in a round about way, I am wrong and dont look at the facts. You simply claim in a subtle way the quotes I gave are wrong and the theory of evolution is fact.

Yet where is the evidence from you? I only see assumptions. You said everyone seems so eager to jump on to the ship of supporting their side of the theory without actually questioning it objectively,

I see you doing this. I can only speak for myself, But I do look at both sides and question everything. Interested can tell you, I have said many times, Christians have lied, do lie and I even called some out on stupid stuff. I dont ever sit here and say, I know everything and you guys know nothing.

I have also stated on this blog many times, People either teach both sides or nothing. In schools they only teach evolution as fact.

If you teach creation you can and people have lost their jobs. Either teach both sides and allow kids to think for themselves or dont teach either. Where do you stand? Should both be taught or only one?

If only one side is taught, then your pushing an agenda and your telling kids what to think. That is not being fair and honest.

rick b said...

I have said many time over and over, Evolution and believing in evolution is a religion. So since everyone trys and tells me I am wrong, then think about what this guy says.

Michael Ruse considers himself both an atheist and agnostic, but believes that "new atheism" is a disservice to science and loathes the term "Humanist".

In his book "The Evolution-creation struggle" Michael Ruse interprets the last 200 years of conflict between biology and religion as a struggle between evolutionism and Creationism. Evolutionism is not merely an endorsement of the scientific theory of evolution. It consists of "the whole metaphysical or ideological picture built around or on evolution." As such, it constitutes a "Secular Religion." Thus for Ruse (a philosopher of science at Florida State University), the debate over Creationism and Evolutionism is more a conflict between Two Religions than one between Religion and Science. The Journal of Science July 22, 2005

So we have a atheist and agnostic who teaches in school that evolution is a religion. He claims to hate God and denys God, yet claims evolution and creation are two religions competing.

rick b said...

Anon said I get a headache from seeing all the logic fallacies present in all the counter arguments shoved to you in the comment section.

What I get tired of is people making claims and not giving evidence to back it up. Can you tell me what Logic fallacies are that I or any other Christian has posted. I will assume that if you dont provide an answer than you cannot do it.

If you do reply, please give evidence from something I said on this blog, not something some other person said on some other blog.

Anon said The people that sees only what they want to see, the people that is seemingly so intelligent and determined, yet refuse to take a step back and look at everyone's theory.

I honestly see this applying to you and the vast majority of Atheists and agnostics. I have in the past provide evidence that you people leave out. Since you leave out information this either shows your doing it by choice and being one sided and pushing an agenda, or you honestly were not aware it existed. But then when you find out it exists, you simply make excuses as to why it is invalid and that shows you really dont care and want to see the truth or both sides. Here are a few examples. You said, You see this asked a lot, "have you even read the bible?" perhaps you should also add "have you read the countless scientific research paper providing empirical evidence of their findings after you tell them you've read the bible cover to cover.

From my experience the vast majority of Atheists and Agnostics have never read the Bible from cover to cover, and the few that have, when they do quote from the Bible only give parts of the story and not the whole story as Paul Harvey used to say, and now for the rest of the story.

Take for example the flood of Noah. Atheists are famous for bringing that up and saying that story is evidence that God is a cruel evil being. The part All Atheists always forget to add is, God gave the entire human race over 100 years to repent and he even gave them to the last minute to have entered the ark. Now if you give the entire story and all those added facts, and then still choose to claim God is cruel and evil, then thats fine. If we were in a court of law and you left out major facts like that, you could be in trouble, yet it is ok for you guys to lie by leaving out facts. Or your not lying, you simply never read the Bible and did not know. But once your told and know, then be honest and share all the facts.

Now onto you saying, we/I must read all the countless papers written. Why? They are not facts, they are only theory's, and I have quoted from science journals, or scientists that claim to believe in evolution and are claiming they are atheists, and they dont fully believe evolution is real, or as factual as you want to believe.

So I read more than you give me credit for, the problem is, If I read something that does not agree with you, you ignore it and accuse me of not being well read or honest. So who in reality is being honest? More to come.

rick b said...

Anon said There are so much assumptions, everyone seems so eager to jump on to the ship of supporting their side of the theory without actually questioning it objectively, but that's just how people operate when then firmly believe in something right? Like that chinese scientist, how accurate was his studies? Appeal to Authority, that's a pretty legitimate logic fallacy. Did he have an ulterior motive in what he says?

Seems your doing just as your accusing others of doing, Your questions the person that does not agree with you, in this case the scientist who claims the other is wrong, why not question if in fact he is correct and this other guy is a fraud? Funny how you did not do that, so in fact your just blindly believing and not providing any evidence that this other person is wrong as you imply.

Anon said, Established religions and all the scandals, lies, thickheadedness is not my thing

Funny how you make this claim towards us believers, yet you bury your head in the sand when it comes to other atheists and fellow scientists who do exactly this.

I can say that I have called BS many times on this blog on many people who claim to be Christians and some of the stupid things they say and do. Interested can testify of me doing this, so why is it you guys cannot do the same to your people?

Take for example the evolutionary hoaxes over the years.

Pilt down man for one example. How about these quotes from Not christian sources.

Australopithecus Afarensis,
Lucy is about three and one half feet tall and had a tiny brain for her size even by ape standards. What is rarely mentioned, however, is the fact that the knee joint was found over a mile away from the skeleton and in strata 200 feet lower. Time magazine August 1999

The idea of feathered Dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at nature and national Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age-the paleontologicalequivalent of cold fusion. If sloan's article is not the crescendo of this fantasia, it is difficult to imagine to what heights it can next be taken. But it is certain that when the folly has run it's course and has been fully exposed , National Geographic will unfortunately play a prominent but unenviable role in the book that summarizes the whole sorry episode. Storrs L Olson, curator of birds, National Museum of natural History Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC, Quoted November 1999

"Archeoraptor is just the tip of the iceberg. There are scores of fake fossils out there, and they have cast a dark shadow over the whole field. When you go to these fossil shows, it's difficult to tell which ones are not. I have heard their is a fake-fossil factory in northeast China, in Liaoning Province, near the deposits where many of these recent alleged feathered dinosaurs were found. Alan Fedducia PD.D "plucking apart the Dino-birds" Discover Magazine, February 2003.

How come you guys are not showing quotes like this? Then after you read them and they appear to damage your theory, you guys find ways to debunk them or say they dont really mean what they say, or these people were not thinking when they said what they said.

Anonymous said...

The problem is evidence: Evangelical Christians, and others, consider the bible as evidence but science does not. The "evidence" comes from one source and not a very reliable source at that. As for the "theory" of evolution; it isn't a theory any more and it never was a theory in the sense that there was no evidence. One of the many problems in discussing this with Christians is that they do not usually understand the scientifice process or the meaning of "theory" in science.
But I know you will never get it Rick because you don't want to understand or question what you wish to believe.

rick b said...

Anon, Again all you can do is say I am wrong and yet provide no evidence. Say what you want, but I am providing quotes and looking at both sides, and all you do is say, Rick you really dont care. Well if you say so then it must be true despite the fact I am doing research.

Also you can say, Evolution is fact and not a faith based religion, but I quoted from Evolution teaching PH.D holding scientists and professors who claim other wise, and say it is a theory or it is a faith based belief, and these guys claim they dont believe in a God, or God(s), and yet you ignore what they said and believe what you want. This tells me that no matter what is said, you are the one in fact who will ignore everything and believe what you want.

"In a world where many adults receive their science education from newspapers and television, a great deal of Misinformation about Global warming exists. The media is quite skilled at making highly untenable predictions of greenhouse doom and gloom appear credible. The inaccuracies about how humans inadvertently warm the earth's tenuous Atmosphere so pervade popular culture that the Actual Science behind the notion is hardly given a second thought.
Jeff Halverson PH.D Education and outreach Scientist NASA, Associate professor University of Maryland, Weatherwise Magazine. August 2005.

Now the point of this quote is not that it is talking about global warming, But that this guy from NASA claims their is much in the way of lies and misinformation coming from the local media. If he is correct, why should we trust what we read or hear on the news? I honestly dont, but suspect you guys do since they are saying what you want to hear, evolution is true.

Anon Said "have you read the countless scientific research paper providing empirical evidence of their findings after you tell them you've read the bible cover to cover.

Here is the definition of empirical.

empirical (ɛmˈpɪrɪk ə l) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— adj
1. derived from or relating to experiment and observation rather than theory
2. (of medical treatment) based on practical experience rather than scientific proof
3. philosophy
a. a priori Compare a posteriori (of knowledge) derived from experience rather than by logic from first principles
b. analytic Compare synthetic (of a proposition) subject, at least theoretically, to verification
4. of or relating to medical quackery

— n
5. statistics Compare mathematical probability See also posterior probability the posterior probability of an event derived on the basis of its observed frequency in a sample

Please provide this evidence you feel I am missing. I have said this before and will post it again just for you Anon.

rick b said...

Interested has stated many times that the "Scientific method" Goes like this.

1. State the problem

2. Formulate the problem

3. Make observations

4. Design the experiment

5. interpret data

6. Draw conclusions

7. report results

Now this method was not created by Interested. But her and many atheists have stated this method to me when I say I dont agree with certain points in science.

I never said I dont agree with science period, I do, I am a professional Chef and baker with 24 plus years experience, and baking is really science.

Now apply these points to the Big Bang.

1. State the problem (How did we get here?) Or where Did human life come from?

2. Formulate the problem It was either God who created us, Or we simply dont know how we got here and can only ASSUME we came via the Big Bang, or maybe aliens, or as one guy stated, on the backs of crystals.

3. Make observations (We cannot do this)

4. Design the experiment (We cannot do this)

5. interpret data (We cannot do this)

6. Draw conclusions (We can only do this by faith with out evidence)

7. report results (We have no results to report)

So I'm not opposed to science, I'm simply saying Evolution like belief in God is a FAITH, You cannot prove evolution in a lab by the "Scientific method".

Since you cannot, you must simply believe it took place, that is called faith.

rick b said...

Anon, I will start by saying, I honestly dont think your reading everything I post. I say that because of the lack of evidence you provide, all you can do is claim I am wrong and leave it at that. You dont even try and provide evidence about the scientists I quote saying they are wrong and giving a rebuttal. Then You never touched the subject about not giving all the facts from the Bible. I dont care if you dont believe the Bible, it's sad how many people claim, I dont believe the Bible, yet they still quote from it, but when they do they only give some of the information not all of it. This shows you guys are misleading people and deceiving them. I can provide a massive list of atheists blogs that do this. Pretty much any atheist blog or website that quotes from the Bible does this, yet I dont see you complaining fellow Non-believers are lying, yet you complain Christians lie. Thats a double standard and makes you a hypocrite. Like I said before, I have called out so called believers on this blog, so If I can be that open and honest, why can't you?

rick b said...

Anon, If evolution is true and can and has been proved, then please explain these quotes?

The anthropic Principle, simply stated is the fine tuning of the physical universe to allow life to exist on this planet. In order to reach this mind boggling degree of fine tuning with so many different parameters, smacks of some form of intelligent Design. According to Penrose, it had to have been accurate to with in one part in 10 to 10(123), and this is a number so vast that it cannot be written on apiece of paper the size of the entire visible Universe!. Michael A. Corey (The God Hypothesis).

Thats a pretty big chance that we arrived by the Big bang or random chance.

How about this,
The occurrence of any event where the chances are beyond 1 in 10 followed by 50 zeros is an event which we CAN STATE WITH CERTAINTY WILL NEVER HAPPEN, no matter how much time is alloted and no matter how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place. Emile Borel Probabilities and life, 1962.

Now thats two Scientists who dont think life just arose, yet you wont care because they disagree with you.

So here is a third.
The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 zeros after it...
It is big enough bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence. Fred Hoyle PH.D Hoyle on Evolution, Nature November 1981.

A team of Australian Scientists led by theoretical physicists Paul Davis has proposed that the speed of light may not be a constant, a revolutionary idea that could unseat one of the most cherished laws of modern physics- Einstein's theory of relativity. If so, physicists will have to rethink many of their basic ideas about the laws of the universe. When one of the cornerstones of physics collapses. It is not obvious what you hang onto and what you discard, Davis said. Scientific journal Nature, August 8 2002

The cosmos contains roughly 10(90) bits of information. By factoring in the available energy and the speed of light, Lloyd estimates the universe could have performed at most 10(120) logical operations since the big bang. Lloyd says, "If we wanted to simulate the universe on a computer, such a computer would have to be as powerful as the universe it's self. In reality, we can only make crude approximations, because all the computer that ever existed on earth have carried out just 10(31) operations.

rick b said...

Anon said As for the "theory" of evolution; it isn't a theory any more and it never was a theory in the sense that there was no evidence.

Your saying as many atheists say, their is evidence for evolution. What do you say to the people that are scientists who claim to be atheist, But also feel their is no evidence? I have already provide quotes from sources that are clearly not Christian, Like the journal of science, or Discover Magazine or from scientists that hold degree's That I'm assuming you dont, and they claim no evidence, yet you ignore all this, why is that? Well here is even more for you.

There is no known law of nature, no known process and no know sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter. Werner Gitt, Professor, German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, (Quoted June 2000)

rick b said...

I have said many times we need to give both sides, yet many of the Atheists only give one side, so here is something Darwin said.

For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A Fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question

Then add this.
Attack The false Idea Not the man who holds the idea" Martin Luther King JR.

Interested did a topic a while back saying disbelief is not a choice I claimed it was and gave this,

This Scientist, George Wald who is/was a Harvard Professor Emeritus of Biology, and a 1971 Nobel prize winner in Biology.

Said this:
There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose: Spontaneous Generation arising to evolution or a supernatural creative act of God...
There is no other possibility.

Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others, But that leaves us with only one other possibility...
that life came as a supernatural act of creation of God, but I can't accept that philosophy because I do not want to believe in God.

Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution.
George Wald "Origin, life and evolution," Scientific American (1978).