January 18, 2009

The Theory of Evilution is a Myth


Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Part Four

Part Five





This five part series should show anyone who is open to the truth, the very obvious reason that the Myth of Evolution is being imposed on the evidence, lacks falsifiability, and has become a part of the contemporary worldview.

43 comments:

  1. Okay, Dan. For the sake of argumentation, I believe you. Evolutionary theory is false.

    So what?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Reasons to Believe?
    You Must Be Kidding.

    That is the most bogus collection of fantasy you are posted ol bean.

    This is a joke, right?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Kaitlyn,

    For the sake of argumentation...Evolutionary theory is false. So what?

    Once we can establish the current paradigm is actually false we can get back to the business to seek the heart of all matter, the God Particle.

    Get it?

    We need to get rid of this Neo-Darwinian fog that we are in to seek our origins and find God i.e. truth.

    Basically a line has been drawn in the sand.

    Currently there are only two options and that is great. Now I am not naive and I know full well that once evolution is indeed determined to be false then the frantic search and postulation will be theorized to not include God [again] just based on human nature and the Bible's predictions. But we must focus to fight one battle at a time as they come up.

    Do you also agree that Science is indeed showing much evidence of a Creator? If evolution is no longer in the picture, currently what other direction is there to go but up?

    __/\/\
    \_\** /
    /_/** \
    \_\/\**\
    ~~~~\*/

    ReplyDelete
  4. Froggie,

    That is the most bogus collection of fantasy you are posted ol bean.

    Is this another typical mere assertion or ad hominem in attempt to discredit?

    If we accept mere assertions of bare logical possibilities as grounds for truth we should believe all mere assertions.

    You're a joke right?

    ReplyDelete
  5. "we can get back to the business to seek the heart of all matter, the God Particle."

    What about the higgs boson?

    "Do you also agree that Science is indeed showing much evidence of a Creator?"

    I don't know. I have not heard of any scientific theory about a creator.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Kaitlyn,

    Me-"we can get back to the business to seek the heart of all matter, the God Particle."

    K-What about the higgs boson?

    That's what I said. The Higgs boson is frequently referred to as 'the God particle.' Imagine that?

    I have not heard of any scientific theory about a creator.

    From a purely logical perspective, there are two possibilities as to the origin of life: It was either created by an outside source or it happened on its own. Kaitlyn, that is what you and I stay up late discussing now isn't it?

    Think of this. There is no way to observe the origin of life on earth, and thus no way to conduct experimental investigation or to describe the process involved.

    All science can do is to develop the most plausible explanation of life originating as a natural phenomenon, even if it's completely wrong!

    So how can science ever know if it has the right answer if it won't explore both possibilities for life's origin?

    "Evolution science refuses to explore the creation alternative on the grounds that it is supernatural and thus outside the bounds of science. But who sets that boundary? Is the boundary fixed or does it just represent the limit of our current understanding? Significant scientific discoveries in the past have often forced us to move the boundaries. Illnesses once thought to be caused by spirits are now known to be due to micro-organisms. Even Einstein had difficulty accepting the truth of quantum mechanics." ( Evolution of Truth)

    "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."(Stephen Hawking)

    "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggest that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers (i.e., probabilities) one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."(SIR FRED HOYLE, ASTROPHYSICIST)

    Who set those boundaries? You Kaitlyn?

    ReplyDelete
  7. No, I don't believe in a separation of the natural and the supernatural. The dividing line of the supernatural and the natural is completely arbitrary and unnecessary.

    When I say I don't believe in the supernatural, I mean if God exists, God should be considered part of nature, not separate from it, and thus the subject of scientific inquiry.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Kaitlyn,

    No, I don't believe in a separation of the natural and the supernatural...God should be considered part of nature, not separate from it, and thus the subject of scientific inquiry.

    Truly brilliant and respectfully, I agree. That is all I am asking as a Creationist. I believe that God is indeed truth so, to seek truth is to seek God. So yes instead of rejection of God because of the supernatural aspect of Him, we need to search and test for the footprint of a Creator.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Okay, Dan, because I like you, I went to the first link. But I stopped reading here:

    no supernatural being is required in the theory of evolution; everything is based on random natural processes called natural selection.

    Dan, do you believe that there are alligators living in the sewers of New York city? If not, why not? After all, this story has been going around at least since I was a kid: there must be some truth to it, right?

    Calling natural selection a "random process" is an alligator in the sewer: it's a widespread story, and you might think it plausible- at least, until you realize that you can't live eating crap. Dan, the whole reason that evolution works is because natural selection is not random. Traits that work better to get reproduced are passed along, and what works is not random at all.

    While there are many different ways of working well as an organism, they are all recognizably not random: they involve things like holding the organism together, protecting its integrity, seeking food and mates, etc. I honestly don't see what's so hard to understand about this, but creationists seem not to get it, and continue coming up with ridiculous "jetliner made by a hurricane in a junkyard" proofs that evolution cannot work.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Even if Neo-Darwinian "evilution" was false it still doesn't make any religion more "right".

    ReplyDelete
  11. ATVLC:

    Exactly. There were reasonable people who questioned the nature of the universe for millennia before Mr Darwin wrote a certain book.

    Anyway Dan, you try to use science to prove a creator God, but then use faith to make the "Yahweh" leap.

    I would love to see a reasonable explanation given as to why Yahweh is our winning candidate.

    Without your personal spiritual revelation being a part of it.

    So the Bible's out I'm afraid (as you have admitted that the Holy Spirit reveals the truth of it personally to you).

    I honestly wonder why you bother with science at all, as there is no way of proving Yahweh through the scientific method. (Unless you know of a way to do it, of course).

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dan said: "Once we can establish the current paradigm is actually false we can get back to the business to seek the heart of all matter, the God Particle."

    You do realize that there are already people searching for the Higgs boson, right? It's not as if the theory of evolution is standing in the way of its discovery, at all. These are two different areas of study.


    "Currently there are only two options and that is great."

    A third option might be "We don't know". I know it's scary...But it's okay not to know something.


    "So how can science ever know if it has the right answer if it won't explore both possibilities for life's origin [evolution and Goddunit]?"

    Once again, false dichotomy. But, how exactly would you test for a creator? Make some predictions. What should we all be looking for...and no, pointing at a particularly pretty tree or flower isn't as compelling as you might think it is.


    "That is all I am asking as a Creationist. I believe that God is indeed truth so, to seek truth is to seek God. So yes instead of rejection of God because of the supernatural aspect of Him, we need to search and test for the footprint of a Creator."

    Since you already have the presupposition necessary to go down this rabbit hole, roll up your sleeves and get started. Start searching and testing. Who's stopping you?

    If it's funding you're worried about, you really shouldn't be complaining to the scientific community. Rather, you should be shaming the religious community for wasting funds on giant mega churches, when they could be funding what (to you) is the most important research of all.

    Stop crying foul whenever someone doesn't agree with you. Maybe you're wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  13. How much would one want to bet that most, if not all of the stuff in those links can be refuted by going to the Index of Creationist Claims, or the Evidences for Evolution site?

    By the way Dan, you know that link you gave for the "line drawn in the sand" post of yours? I posted there myself. I had listed several links that were of relevence to the topic there.

    If you want to learn more about genetics (information) increase and evolution...

    ReplyDelete
  14. In addition to the criticism of Part I given by others above, one quick method I use to get a basic idea of an article's relevance and/or currency is to take a quick glance at its "Works Cited," and check out the dates.

    In the case of Part I of this series, the most recently written citation was from 1979. While this doesn't necessarily mean the information presented is wrong or actually outdated, in a field of study as dynamic as biology and evolutionary theory, 30-year-old documents -- at the youngest -- are suspect, to say the least.

    To be fair, I have applied this quick method to the other four parts, and several of them have far more recent citations (though many of these are from Behe), so perhaps the arguments put forth will gain traction, but this first section fails the currency/relevance test, and after reading it, it seems to merely be trying to place Evolution into the same category as Creationism, while striving to avoid any direct comparison with biblical Creationism.

    As others have noted, in the first couple paragraphs we already see blatant misrepresentations of Evolutionary Theory, which doesn't bode well for the rest of the series. Being short as it is, though, I'll take a look.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  15. Even if a sentient creator did begin our universe, what rationale is there to worship it, bestow humans on Earth with its authority, believe in books claiming it as a source for its authorship, and generally be intolerant towards anyone who doesn't agree with you on the particulars of its nature?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Debunking Atheists is here to do exactly that, to debunk thy atheists.

    CwC asserts I honestly wonder why you bother with science at all, as there is no way of proving Yahweh through the scientific method.

    I am here to show the atheists views as wrong, to in fact, debunk them. Evilution is another central figure to their faith. If evilution can be proven false then maybe, just maybe they will look at their inner selves to reevaluate their worldview. Yes, there are professing Christians that believe in evilution but does that mean it's true. They have a hard time justifying the Bible compared to evilution but that is not my fight here.

    This is why it's important to show the truth. I love and adore science, contrary to your bias to believe otherwise. Science itself attempts to reveal truth and even people here and elsewhere that are not Christians understand that evilution is indeed a faith based religion of many people. Somehow, someway, Science turned into a bias, and latched itself to a theory as the paradigm. Which showed it to be unreliable at the moment. Science should always stay independent of all theories, even the ones I agree with.

    "The key to the testing process is falsifiability. A positive test result means a hypothesis is plausible, but a negative test result proves it false."

    As Pvblivs postulated in earlier posts. These days a negative test for the hypothesis of evolution doesn't prove the hypothesis false but just renders that particular test inconclusive and they move on.

    ATVLC- Even if Neo-Darwinian "evilution" was false it still doesn't make any religion more "right".

    From what I am gathering from y'all it appears even proving evolution to be false then that wouldn't even phase anyone in the least. They would just latch on to something else, anything else, as long as it's not God.

    Sad

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dan there were atheists before Darwin.

    What was their "faith system" sans evolution theory?

    Also I don't know or care whether you like science. I'm sort of "meh" about it. Seems you have the preconception of me brother.

    ReplyDelete
  18. From what I am gathering from y'all it appears even proving evolution to be false then that wouldn't even phase anyone in the least. They would just latch on to something else, anything else, as long as it's not God.

    Sad


    The evidence for evolution increases everyday. There's no evidence of any gods.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Here’s the problem, Dan, and I’m sure I’ve said this before:

    Evolution is neither true, nor false; the only things true about evolution is what we say about it relative to the data/science. When one talks about evolution in a general/rhetorical sense, they’re merely speaking philosophically as there isn’t any broad spectrum proof of everything assumed about evolution. The same can be said (for example) about M-theory; it looks like science because it’s mathematical, however until empirical evidence is laid bare to support the theory, it’s just philosophy. It’s no different then Einstein’s theory of relativity prior to establishing the physical proof by means of an eclipse.

    So you’re a creationist, and since you debate creationism within a scientific paradigm and work to debunk your supposed opposition by using the opposition’s tools (science) then I would ask you quite simply, “Where is the scientific evidence to support your theory of creationism?” If you don’t have any solid empirical evidence of any sort aside from kicking the opposition, then you have nothing more then a philosophical stance; in which case, so what.

    You can’t prove that you’re right by proving the opposition wrong, because that just assumes you’re right, when of course your could be wrong; there could in fact be a third choice that none of us know. It’s fallaciousness, Dan.

    Not only that, but atheist doesn’t equal evolutionist.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Andrew,

    Not only that, but atheist doesn’t equal evolutionist.

    Which begs the question, how many atheists out there that believe in Creationism?

    1. millions

    2. thousands

    3. ZERO!

    ReplyDelete
  21. how many atheists out there that believe in Creationism?

    What, you mean like aliens or something?
    I don't know.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dan Said:

    "Which begs the question, how many atheists out there that believe in Creationism?

    1. millions

    2. thousands

    3. ZERO!"


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raelism

    I hope this answers your question.

    ReplyDelete
  23. UCT,

    Touché

    I will give you that. I should have been more specific as to what I meant and that is Biblical Creationism. I will remember that next time.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Dan said:

    "UCT,

    Touché

    I will give you that. I should have been more specific as to what I meant and that is Biblical Creationism. I will remember that next time."

    What does the Bible have to do with Andrews assertion that "atheist doesn’t equal evolutionist."? Two different issues. It's not always about you, you know.

    ReplyDelete
  25. UCT,

    It's not always about you, you know.

    True, but it is always about Him though. Whether you like it or not we are only here for God's glory.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Why does He want/need glory? Is He unhappy? Bored? What's the point?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dan said:

    "True, but it is always about Him though. Whether you like it or not we are only here for God's glory."

    This still doesn't address Andrew's statement that "atheist doesn’t equal evolutionist". I assume this means you have yet another post planned, restating your false claim. Never mind, then. We'd hate to derail your train of thought with facts.

    By the way... Whether you like it or not, there probably is no God.

    See? Now we've both made an unprovable blanket statement. Well...I did say "probably". I guess that gives me a little wiggle room.

    ReplyDelete
  28. UCT,

    UCT-Whether you like it or not, there probably is no God.

    UCT-Well...I did say "probably". I guess that gives me a little wiggle room.

    Awww you beat me to the punch. I say there IS A GOD without any wiggle room and I know it as fact evidenced by many things revealed to us. You need wiggle room to make a pseudo claim.

    Remember, the mere assertions for (x) does not equal adequate justification for (x)

    'God exists' has plenty of adequate justification.

    ReplyDelete
  29. So Dan,

    Have you actually figured out what evolution is and what the Theory of Evolution says?

    From what I hear, you're still saying things like "are humans descended from birds?", which would make me think that you haven't, in fact, bothered to look into evolutionary science beyond what the apologetics crowd are peddling.

    Shame.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Dan said:

    "Awww you beat me to the punch. I say there IS A GOD without any wiggle room and I know it as fact evidenced by many things revealed to us."

    Oh. Well... My bad. I didn't know you had any evidence for the existence of God. Why didn't you say so in the first place? Quit beating around the burning bush and present it.


    "You need wiggle room to make a pseudo claim."

    Actually, you don't... A person can make any fanciful claim they desire and not leave a lick of wiggle room. A good example of this is:

    "True, but it is always about Him though. Whether you like it or not we are only here for God's glory."

    No wiggle room there and nothing to back it up. Just a bald assertion that appears to be an attempt to get the last word without actually adding anything meaningful to the discussion.

    The difference between your assertion and mine was that yours was an absolute statement while mine was a statement on probability (because I don't claim universal knowledge, unlike deities, like yourself).

    "Remember, the mere assertions for (x) does not equal adequate justification for (x)"

    This was exactly my point. Self reflection can be fun. You should try it, sometime.

    "'God exists' has plenty of adequate justification".

    Only to those who already presuppose God's existence.

    All that typing and we never did address Andrew's statement that:

    "atheist doesn’t equal evolutionist"

    You, sir, are a master debater. Almost as good as Sye.

    ReplyDelete
  31. UCT,

    All that typing and we never did address Andrew's statement that:

    "atheist doesn’t equal evolutionist"


    According to atheists: Atheists doesn't equal human or reality either. So what?

    I did address that point (corrected) though,

    "Which begs the question, how many atheists out there that believe in (Biblical) Creationism?

    1. millions

    2. thousands

    3. ZERO!"

    And I did give you kudos for your Raelism insertion.

    Atheists have no where to go without evolution. If refuted, then they are at the extreme desperation of Raelism. To which I highly doubt most of you would believe. So now you do see the importance of falsifying evolution. That will just render your worldview pointless and you will have to adopt another. If you can look yourselves in the mirror believing in Raelism then so be it. As long as it's not God right?

    ReplyDelete
  32. "So now you do see the importance of falsifying evolution. That will just render your worldview pointless and you will have to adopt another."

    I think if you falsified evolution, I would admit that I don't understand specialization and it wouldn't really affect my personal beliefs in any tangible way.

    I think Dan is right in saying that evolution is important in the modern atheistic movement, but it doesn't hinge upon it in any way.

    Disciplines like geology and astronomy are equally as important as biology in understanding how complex things arise without needing a creative or intelligence force behind it.

    The only thing that might make me question atheism is if we overturn science. If someone could explain why we shouldn't trust science, then yes, that would shake the foundations of naturalism and atheism to its core.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Dan said:

    "I did address that point (corrected) though..."

    Excellent. Then I guess you won't be equating the two, again.

    "Atheists have no where to go without evolution."

    Oh-oh.

    "If refuted, then they are at the extreme desperation of Raelism. To which I highly doubt most of you would believe."

    Dan, is your entire world filled with false dichotomies, or just this one sticking point?

    "So now you do see the importance of falsifying evolution."

    If it's false, yes. Unlike you, I reserve judgment.

    "That will just render your worldview pointless and you will have to adopt another."

    You have a low opinion of my "worldview". But that's cool. You're arrogant, so it's understandable.

    "If you can look yourselves in the mirror believing in Raelism then so be it. As long as it's not God right?"

    I know one thing. I can look myself in the mirror and admit I don't know. Can you? But hey, as long as you don't have to think too hard, right?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Kaitlyn said:

    "I think Dan is right in saying that evolution is important in the modern atheistic movement, but it doesn't hinge upon it in any way."

    Evolution is only important to an atheistic "movement" so far as theist use animals and pretty flowers as evidence for their case.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I think there's something to be said about having a well-supported naturalistic explanation for our existence up to a point that negates the need for any kind of designer.

    I think once you accept that there's no need to postulate "goddidit," there's no reason to really believe in an omnipotent deity.

    But like I said, scientific explanations are convergent in that they eliminate a deity as the probable cause of natural phenomena. Falsify evolution, and you still have thousands of theories left that explain complex phenomena in terms of naturalistic origins.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Kaitlyn,

    I think there's something to be said about having a well-supported naturalistic explanation for our existence up to a point that negates the need for any kind of designer.

    The only something to be said is wild assumptions.

    I perfectly understand your position since I held that same one myself for years. But these new Bible Goggles (not to be confused with beer goggles) help me see things differently. One of us is just wrong and I hope it's me.

    ReplyDelete
  37. The only something to be said is wild assumptions.
    If by "wild assumptions" you mean theories and explanations based on physical evidence (see and read my earlier links) then yeah. Otherwise, you're showing that you know nothing and care nothing about knowing how scientists actually conduct research.

    As is evidenced by your once having TalkOrigins on your banned list.

    I perfectly understand your position since I held that same one myself for years. But these new Bible Goggles (not to be confused with beer goggles) help me see things differently. One of us is just wrong and I hope it's me.
    Well, then I've got good news for you...

    ReplyDelete
  38. Reynold,

    When I said "wild" assumptions I meant it as a dramatic emphasis, nothing more. I should have just said assumptions. You were right in tagging me on that point.

    Being honest though you must admit there are assumptions in the scientific community even if it isn't science, especially in evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  39. In the scientific commmunity though, Dan...assumptions can be tested, and they're discarded if they don't work out. That's what peer-review is for. That's what testing theories and experimentation is for in the scientific community.

    That's different than the fields of apologetics and "hermeunetics" (however it's spelled!) in religion. You start out with what you want to believe, and you seek to "defend" it.

    Frauds don't generally last long in science, and when they're exposed, it's usually other scientists who've exposed them.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Reynold,

    Frauds don't generally last long in science, and when they're exposed, it's usually other scientists who've exposed them.

    Really? Darwin has lasted 200 years now, it sure is taking a long time to expose that fraud. Bias is the new science, or neo-science.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Dang, this site costs me an irony meter per session.

    ReplyDelete
  42. henwli: you need to put safety fuses in your irony meters: it saves a bunch of trouble. This is how to do it: just take a deep breath, and think "life is good, life is funny" before you read, and your meter will live to register another day.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Dan +†+ said...

    Reynold,

    Frauds don't generally last long in science, and when they're exposed, it's usually other scientists who've exposed them.


    Really? Darwin has lasted 200 years now, it sure is taking a long time to expose that fraud. Bias is the new science, or neo-science.
    Evidence that "Darwin" is a fraud? I could say that creationism is a fraud that's lasted for over 2000 years.

    Do you not look at any sites except those that agree with what you already believe Dan?

    Do you not notice that you get smacked down pretty much any time you try posting about evolution on your own blog?

    When it comes to bias, have you ever read any of the oaths that members of any creationist organizations have to take before they join up? No actual science research group or organization has that kind of thing.

    Still want to talk about bias?

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>