There Is Scientific Proof of a Creator. Evolution Can Be Disproved

crackerboy

crackerboy

Active Member
Why is it that the only argument I can get from anyone is to try and discredit the scientists themselves and not the information they put out there. I have not seen a single person really address the issues that those video's have with evolution and all the many other topics. Instead its just insult and denial with out any real argument. Mindphuk is the only one that posted anything of value. But even then it falls short of addressing the majority of the claims made in the videos i posted. Look the title was just to get peoples attention. The point is that there is more than one point of view on these subjects. And it is my experience that the truth usually lies somewhere between the two sides.
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
crackerboy said:
Why is it that the only argument I can get from anyone is to try and discredit the scientists themselves and not the information they put out there. I have not seen a single person really address the issues that those video's have with evolution and all the many other topics. Instead its just insult and denial with out any real argument. Mindphuk is the only one that posted anything of value. But even then it falls short of addressing the majority of the claims made in the videos i posted. Look the title was just to get peoples attention. The point is that there is more than one point of view on these subjects. And it is my experience that the truth usually lies somewhere between the two sides.
Click to expand...
Anyone? Did I not respond with an offer to you concerning the biological claims in the video? Anything about evolution you want to know or don't understand just ask. Are you going to agree to watch those videos? I will write up a critique of the first video with Lee Strobel and the Discovery Institute "scientists" present.

Why are you still arguing about the dissent letter?
I already explained that there is nothing in that letter that actually is says what you claim it does. It says nothing that biologists haven't known for decades. Of course mutation and natural selection aren't sufficient, we know life also used evolutionary processes like adaptive radiation, endosymbiosis, horizontal gene transfer, sexual selection, etc. They present these people as opponents of evolution when the statement the people actually signed says nothing of the sort.
 
Sure Shot

Sure Shot

Well-Known Member
crackerboy said:
Why is it that the only argument I can get from anyone is to try and discredit the scientists themselves and not the information they put out there. I have not seen a single person really address the issues that those video's have with evolution and all the many other topics. Instead its just insult and denial with out any real argument. Mindphuk is the only one that posted anything of value. But even then it falls short of addressing the majority of the claims made in the videos i posted. Look the title was just to get peoples attention. The point is that there is more than one point of view on these subjects. And it is my experience that the truth usually lies somewhere between the two sides.
Click to expand...
You clearly don't understand my view.:dunce:
There was a creator.
One of extra-terrestrial origin or, as they say "Came from the heavens".:-o
All cultures say this to some extent.:!:
Scientist and Archeologists have just token the magic out of it.:sad:
 
I

Illumination

New Member
crackerboy said:
yeah I practice asshole projection all the time. mostly when I eat taco bell.
Click to expand...

yes well...you just projected that you are said asshole....his dialog was not even directed at you yet when I did direct towards you in friendship you ignore it...yep...you are the asshole so you and your god are nothing...

Don't look into your own eyes in the mirror.................

Namaste':peace:
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
I was watching the first video and jotting down notes about some of the claims, especially the ones made by Jonathan Wells, their biologist. It seems that he makes many of the same arguments that have been used for ages by creationists that have been shown to be misunderstanding and mischaracterizations that have already been refuted numerous times by biologists that actually work in the field of evolutionary biology. I'm surprised that Lee Strobel claims to have approached the subject with a critical, skeptical eye, yet not once is any biologist presented to answer the supposed objections. I guess having a wife that converted to Christianity led him to find reasons to try to reconcile his beliefs rather than actually search for the truth.

Wells makes numerous errors and strawman arguments and some of the rebuttals can be found in the videos I posted. But it does seem for every bullshit assertion he makes in 10 seconds, it would take about 10 minutes to explain why he is wrong, mostly because in order to do so, we need to go back and teach remedial biology which takes far longer than it does to make up a criticism.

Here's one example: He claims "the branching tree pattern of Darwin's theory is not seen ANYWHERE in the fossil record unless we impose it with our own minds."
This is absolutely and entirely rubbish and the first videos I posted demonstrate this very clear, especially the ones comparing cars, something that has homologous features and successive improvements and design changes but do not show an ordered branching pattern to living things which clearly show such a pattern. Carl Linnaeus was a creationist that died before Darwin was born and even he recognized and published in Systema Naturae that life exists in nested hierarchies which are the basis for the phylogenetic tree. So first his claim that Darwin was the first to propose a tree of life is wrong. The tree of life is an inherent characteristic found in nature that was recognized long before Origin of Species. Darwin merely gave a rationale as to why such a tree exists.

So crackerboy, to go through and rebut this hour long video would take me an extraordinary amount of time. I think it would be better if you can bring up some of the individual claims that YOU feel are the strongest and post them one at a time and I will give my answer that way. Sound fair?
 
dontexist21

dontexist21

Well-Known Member
I do not know why you guys waste your time, he obviously has never taken a science class in his life, and does not understand the scientific process or how the arguments work. He is like the people that argue the that evolution can not be true since it is only a theory, when in fact a theory is the highest order of any scientific question. But as mindphuk said why does he bring his questions to use about what he believes is wrong with evolution, but I believe it is to complicated for him to understand.
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
dontexist21 said:
I do not know why you guys waste your time, he obviously has never taken a science class in his life, and does not understand the scientific process or how the arguments work. He is like the people that argue the that evolution can not be true since it is only a theory, when in fact a theory is the highest order of any scientific question. But as mindphuk said why does he bring his questions to use about what he believes is wrong with evolution, but I believe it is to complicated for him to understand.
Click to expand...
I waste my time because I have found that not all people discussing this are unreasonable and although at first things might conflict with deeply held beliefs, critical thinking is actually a skill people can learn and improve their ability to understanding the deductive and inductive arguments that science makes. Some people enjoy learning about these scientific discoveries as they are really fascinating. It becomes a bigger hurdle when people are unwilling to acknowledge the power that real critical thinking gave humanity and discount logic and reason in even these informal discussions.

@crackerboy, seriously, did you ever stop and think that even those videos you posted are people that are trying to convince you using logic and reason? Of course it's not their rational arguments that convince you they are right, it is their ideology because their use of logic break downs on close examination. Their arguments are flimsy and are merely used as an excuse to allow you to dismiss evolution, and I guess abiogenesis, the big bang and everything else that creationists attempt to paint as "Dawinism." There's a reason these types of arguments are made by scientists on DI videos on youtube rather than in journals like Nature, Science, or one of the hundreds of journals related to cell and molecular biology, genetics, embryology, or biochemistry. These are the places that real criticism to anything pertaining to modern evolutionary theory would take place.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
I always thought that the greatest reason people are so willing to have faith is the belief that they can and will live forever and that the end of their life is the beginning of a new and wonderful one with no wants and all of your desires will be met. Anything that sounds that good must be worth believing in, especially since you will be punished if you don't.

Another thing that makes me wonder is why does god hate amputees so much? I mean you hear how god has cured so many people of blindness, obesity, heart problems, paralysis and even death, but I have yet to hear of someone who lost a limb and the next day it had grown back because God was involved. So either God really hates amputees and never cures them, or he doesn't exist. OR its all just a bunch of hooey these people who are getting miracle cures from God.
 
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
I always thought that the greatest reason people are so willing to have faith is the belief that they can and will live forever and that the end of their life is the beginning of a new and wonderful one with no wants and all of your desires will be met. Anything that sounds that good must be worth believing in, especially since you will be punished if you don't.
Click to expand...
The less control a person feels they have over a situation, the more superstitious they become. You can observe this from athletes, who tend to be very superstitious. They have to wear their lucky shirt, or perform some sacred ritual. The more the game is based on chance, rather than skill, the more superstitious the players tend to be. It is a way to help them feel as if they had more control over the situation than they really do. Some people will not fly without a lucky item, special ritual, ect..yet they will get in a car with no problem. That is because they feel they have less control over the plane, and superstition kicks in. What situation do we have less control over than our own deaths? It stands to reason that some of the most elaborate superstitions revolve around the thing we control the least.
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
I always thought that the greatest reason people are so willing to have faith is the belief that they can and will live forever and that the end of their life is the beginning of a new and wonderful one with no wants and all of your desires will be met. Anything that sounds that good must be worth believing in, especially since you will be punished if you don't.

Another thing that makes me wonder is why does god hate amputees so much? I mean you hear how god has cured so many people of blindness, obesity, heart problems, paralysis and even death, but I have yet to hear of someone who lost a limb and the next day it had grown back because God was involved. So either God really hates amputees and never cures them, or he doesn't exist. OR its all just a bunch of hooey these people who are getting miracle cures from God.
Click to expand...
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
 
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
A little off topic and I really hope not to offend anyone with this query, but something that has always puzzled me in relation to evolution is homosexuality. I'll leave the moral and philosophical aspects outside the scope of this discussion, but isn't homosexuality counter productive in terms of evolution? I am told homosexuality is reported to be observed in 100% of species. Apparently evolution has favored this behavior which is why it has never been filtered out. It seems to me in my limited self education on the subject that evolution favors behavior which always ultimately leads to increased reproduction. Homosexuality would seem to encourage the direct opposite of that.

The only answer that I have really gotten when asking this is, homosexuality might serve to increase the bonding and sense of family in a group. Pretty unsatisfactory answer IMO.

Another explanation is that it is a sort of built in population control. This makes me wonder if evolution presents other such controls?

So can someone enlighten me? Why has evolution preserved homosexuality?
 
Sure Shot

Sure Shot

Well-Known Member
Well, it is on the fringe of the topic, but a good question, none the less.
I have pondered this as well. My hypothesis is that homosexuality happens in the womb.
There are imperfections in all aspects of life, and that itself, is a gear of evolution.
Now some of these imperfections show up visually, such as a third nipple.
Others are passed down, hidden in the genetic code, unless buffered by a stronger code.
These imperfections show up in all aspects of life, mental, physical, social.
So, I deduce it may be feasible to assume the same is possible for a mother's womb.
I suggest, it's likely an improper balance of hormones in the womb leading to homosexuality.

While writing this, I googled and found an article about a study done in this particular field, with very similar conclusions.Here it is.

A question that I can't seem to grasp is this,"Why do men have nipples?"
 
guy incognito

guy incognito

Well-Known Member
Heisenberg said:
A little off topic and I really hope not to offend anyone with this query, but something that has always puzzled me in relation to evolution is homosexuality. I'll leave the moral and philosophical aspects outside the scope of this discussion, but isn't homosexuality counter productive in terms of evolution? I am told homosexuality is reported to be observed in 100% of species. Apparently evolution has favored this behavior which is why it has never been filtered out. It seems to me in my limited self education on the subject that evolution favors behavior which always ultimately leads to increased reproduction. Homosexuality would seem to encourage the direct opposite of that.

The only answer that I have really gotten when asking this is, homosexuality might serve to increase the bonding and sense of family in a group. Pretty unsatisfactory answer IMO.

Another explanation is that it is a sort of built in population control. This makes me wonder if evolution presents other such controls?

So can someone enlighten me? Why has evolution preserved homosexuality?
Click to expand...
Isn't suicide too? That happens all the time. Not everything an organism does necessarily helps it's genes. Nor does it guarantee to wipe a species out. An organism with a defect that can still pass on it's genes and survive will ensure that defect stays around.
 
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
guy incognito said:
Isn't suicide too? That happens all the time. Not everything an organism does necessarily helps it's genes. Nor does it guarantee to wipe a species out. An organism with a defect that can still pass on it's genes and survive will ensure that defect stays around.
Click to expand...
Isn't suicide considered to be abnormal behavior, while homosexuality is considered to be natural? You make an excellent point though, some undesirable or otherwise useless traits might stick around because they are connected in some way to a useful trait. What strikes me though is that homosexuality seems to work directly against evolution, rather than being some benign emergence, so it just strikes me as odd that it hasn't been filtered out.
 
I

Illumination

New Member
Heisenberg said:
Isn't suicide considered to be abnormal behavior, while homosexuality is considered to be natural? You make an excellent point though, some undesirable or otherwise useless traits might stick around because they are connected in some way to a useful trait. What strikes me though is that homosexuality seems to work directly against evolution, rather than being some benign emergence, so it just strikes me as odd that it hasn't been filtered out.
Click to expand...
That is quite the question and I must adhere with your logic on this

Maybe homosexuality is connected to some other undesirable trait that our genetics desire to eliminate and therefore homosexuality is the way for the code to weed out the other prosperity limiting trait?

Excellent mind food H

Namaste':leaf:
 
guy incognito

guy incognito

Well-Known Member
Heisenberg said:
Isn't suicide considered to be abnormal behavior, while homosexuality is considered to be natural? You make an excellent point though, some undesirable or otherwise useless traits might stick around because they are connected in some way to a useful trait. What strikes me though is that homosexuality seems to work directly against evolution, rather than being some benign emergence, so it just strikes me as odd that it hasn't been filtered out.
Click to expand...
I don't know. Do animals kill themselves? A quick search on google shows they do, but there are too few sources for me to form an opinion on the matter just yet.

Another quick search on google:

There were an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 gay and lesbian biological parents in 1976. In 1990, an estimated 6 to 14 million children have gay or lesbian parents.
Click to expand...
http://adoption.about.com/od/gaylesbian/f/gayparents.htm

If gay is genetic then they still have the ability to bear children, and apparently many of them still do despite being gay. If it's environmental, well many of them raise children. Either way the tendency would continue on. Especially when you think about history of our species. What time period would it be ok to be openly gay, and have sex ONLY with people of the same sex? Even if you were gay you would most likely do what you are "supposed" to do, and get a wife, and pop some babies out. I have known lots of people with gay parents that apparently passed their genes on.

In fact a couple of my friends from scouting had a huge family ordeal several years ago. Their father died, and after a couple years of grieving their mother basically said "I'm gay kids. I thought I was gay before I met your father. I loved your father, and you. I'm glad I raised a family and married your father, he was a great man, but I am gay and must follow my desires now". Three kids in that family all carrying the "gay" gene now.
 
I

Illumination

New Member
guy incognito said:
I don't know. Do animals kill themselves? A quick search on google shows they do, but there are too few sources for me to form an opinion on the matter just yet.

Another quick search on google:



http://adoption.about.com/od/gaylesbian/f/gayparents.htm

If gay is genetic then they still have the ability to bear children, and apparently many of them still do despite being gay. If it's environmental, well many of them raise children. Either way the tendency would continue on. Especially when you think about history of our species. What time period would it be ok to be openly gay, and have sex ONLY with people of the same sex? Even if you were gay you would most likely do what you are "supposed" to do, and get a wife, and pop some babies out. I have known lots of people with gay parents that apparently passed their genes on.
Click to expand...
Well those stats would seem flawed as the increase in number is more so from societal acceptance and people admitting to and revealing their preference due to this acceptance than that homosexuality is genetically proliferating wouldn't you agree?

While it is admitted that they can bear children, it is still a factor that the lack of desire to perform sex acts which can lead to conception, combined with a desire to perform sex acts which cannot lead to conception, will lessen the presence of the underlying negative traits that the code is trying to rid itself of

Maybe the homosexuality trait is used to purge numerous undesirable traits and the code uses homo sexuality to purge all those traits but homosexuality...therefore desiring to preserve it to some degree for that purpose?

Namaste'
 
Sure Shot

Sure Shot

Well-Known Member
What about the fact that everything has imperfections, even the female reproductive system?
What about the fact that seemingly every law in nature, has an exception?
Since imperfections are natural, homosexuality, by relation, is natural.

If you read the article I cited earlier, there is a great explanation as to how these genes pass on in the siblings of gay people.

Here it is;

"Important new evidence on a plausible mechanism for the evolution of "gay genes" has emerged from the work of Camperio-Ciani.[23] They found in two large, independent studies that the female relatives of homosexual men tended to have significantly more offspring than those of the heterosexual men. Female relatives of the homosexual men on their mother's side tended to have more offspring than those on the father's side. This indicates that females carrying a putative "gay genes" complex are more fecund than women lacking this complex of genes, and thereby can compensate for any decreased fertility of the males carrying the genes. This is a well known phenomenon in evolution known as "sexual antagonism", and has been widely documented for many traits that are advantageous in one sex but not in the other. This provides solid experimental evidence of how "gay genes" could not only survive but thrive over the course of evolution."
 
Pipe Dream

Pipe Dream

Well-Known Member
Heisenberg said:
A little off topic and I really hope not to offend anyone with this query, but something that has always puzzled me in relation to evolution is homosexuality. I'll leave the moral and philosophical aspects outside the scope of this discussion, but isn't homosexuality counter productive in terms of evolution? I am told homosexuality is reported to be observed in 100% of species. Apparently evolution has favored this behavior which is why it has never been filtered out. It seems to me in my limited self education on the subject that evolution favors behavior which always ultimately leads to increased reproduction. Homosexuality would seem to encourage the direct opposite of that.

The only answer that I have really gotten when asking this is, homosexuality might serve to increase the bonding and sense of family in a group. Pretty unsatisfactory answer IMO.

Another explanation is that it is a sort of built in population control. This makes me wonder if evolution presents other such controls?

So can someone enlighten me? Why has evolution preserved homosexuality?
Click to expand...
I don't think homosexuality can be in your genes. For this kind of trait to be passed on there would have to be some abnormal gene or combination of genes that would create or define a homosexual. Peronalities are just something unique to everybody and people could be exact opposites of their parents or even twin. On top of this, experiences are different for everybody and our experiences have a major impact on how we live our lives but as an instinctual urge I think it just comes down to individuals not evolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top