Evolution - Satan's biggest brilliant and magnificent plan !!

[skysaintj 0]

Sorry about the long post(read) but it's the way it is people ...

The recap the regroup the breakdown and the Truth.

Evolution is the biggest lie that exists and effects YOU ,your children and every choice you make ...and in the end , which there is not ...it's all about your destiny ...WAKE UP AND SEARCH ABSOLUTE TRUTH with everything you have within yourself - try to start fresh by scratching all graphics of God , religion and old droopy darwin for a start ...consider that something like satan is real and maybe he has deceived you he is the father of lies and will do anything in his power to deceive you or to delay you from finding the one and only Truth....consider evolutionists have their entire lives and reputations resting upon Darwin's theory. They're committed to their religion, just as any true Christian is committed to his. If an evolutionist changes his views, then he denies and forsakes his fellow scientists and former educators. He becomes a "black sheep," loses his job, his reputation, and his social standing. Since he has studied and worked his entire life to get where he is, he isn't about to throw it all away. So the committed evolutionist chooses to strive harder and harder in his effort to disprove the Genesis account. He will ignore all facts which support Special Creation. He is not open to anything other than "evidence" to prove his theory. All evidence which proves CONTRARY to his theory is discarded and ignored. A fine example of this behavior can be found in the work of Dr. George Wald, Novel Peace Prize winner for Science in 1967. Dr. Wald says the following:

"When if comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: That of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." (Dennis Lindsay, "The Dinosaur Dilemma," Christ for the Nations, Vol. 35, No. 8, November, 1982, pp. 4-5, 14.)
So Darwin's theory is commonly accepted as a scientific fact, NOT because it can be proven, but rather because it is the ONLY ALTERNATIVE TO BELIEVING THE GENESIS ACCOUNT OF CREATION. The evolutionist has gotten himself into a trap where he must spend the rest of his life running from God.


How science cheats at proving its pet theory

The word theory, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is “a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts.” To be considered a theory, something must be “confirmed” and account for the “known facts.” Evolution has been neither, as shall be proven herein.

In contrast, a “hypothesis” as defined by Oxford is “a proposition or principle put forth or stated (without any reference to its correspondence with fact) merely as a basis for reasoning or argument …. [A] provisional supposition from which to draw conclusions that shall be in accordance with known facts, and which serves as a starting-point for further investigation by which it may be proved or disproved and the true theory arrived at.” More simply stated, a hypothesis is an idea or a guess at something without facts to support it. If the evidence proves the hypothesis, it then becomes a theory.

The idea of evolution has never reached that step. At best, evolution is a hypothesis. Unproven and without “correspondence with fact,” it stands as an idea scientists seem desperate to substantiate, though they remain unable to do so. An examination of the facts easily proves there is no theory of evolution.

What Is Evolution?

Evolution is the belief that life spontaneously erupted from non-living chemicals—all life today coming from that eruption. It includes the idea that all creatures alive today have, after many varied steps, come into existence from some previously existing creatures. For example, it is claimed that a fish in the past began changing, then, over millions of years and many intermediate steps, became a mammal of today.

Evolution supporters suggest that fish somehow became amphibians and amphibians somehow became mammals. This process is supposed to have taken many millions of years, involving millions of intermediate steps to achieve.

Do not confuse the theory of evolution with adaptation of a species or genetic variation. Adaptation simply means that something changes to fit its environment, not that it changes into some other species. Genetic variation occurs when there are limiting factors in the available gene pool. But again, it does not produce some new species—only changes within the same species.

This can be seen in the different breeds of animals such as horses. Draft horses have been bred to produce size and power; miniature horses for smallness and quarter horses for quickness. No one denies that they have common ancestors, but no one suggests they are no longer horses either. These differences do not represent evolution. Horses are still horses. The evolutionist suggests that perhaps walruses changed into horses, or the other way around.

To investigate evolution, it is necessary to observe the evidence and decide whether the conclusions of evolutionists follow logic and are in harmony with the physical evidence, or if those conclusions are established by conjecture and opinion based on preconceived beliefs.

Falsifying the Truth

Examining the evidence is not as easy as it may seem. It would be assumed that the facts could be found in science books, magazines and articles. That assumption would be wrong. Certainly some facts may be discovered in the scientific literature, but the authors of such works seem bent on promulgating false and misleading information about evolution. With much enthusiasm, proponents of evolution often steer past the facts and go directly to the myths surrounding their beloved hypothesis that guides and even directs the writing of the textbooks and articles they publish.

Using common skills of discernment, anyone can discover the falsehoods included in most pro-evolution writings. Let’s expose a few of these obvious attempts to color the public’s and even the scientific community’s understanding of the unsupported theory of evolution.

Most biology textbooks have a section about evolution. One of the favorite “proofs” commonly included in such a chapter is the similarity of embryos from a variety of animals and man. This information may be traced back to embryologist Ernest Haeckel in the mid-1800s. Haeckel published pictures he claimed were the embryos of a fish, salamander, tortoise, chicken, hog, calf, rabbit and human being. He tried to show that the embryos look similar in the early stages of development. This was supposed to show they all had a common ancestor.

The problem is, the pictures were not accurate; in fact, they were faked. Jonathan Wells wrote in his book Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?, “When Haeckel’s embryos are viewed side by side with actual embryos, there can be no doubt that his drawings were deliberately distorted to fit his theory.”

This fraud was known and published as early as 1894 by Professor Adam Sedgwick of Cambridge University, who wrote that the similarities reported by Haeckel are “not in accordance with the facts of development.”

Scientists continue to find fault with the “evolutionary evidence” created by Haeckel. In 1977, “Erich Blechschmidt noted: ‘The early stages of human embryonic development are distinct from the early development of other species.’ And in 1987, Richard Elinson reported that frogs, chicks, and mice ‘are radically different in such fundamental properties as egg size, fertilization mechanisms, cleavage patterns, and [gastrulation] movements’” (Wells, op. cit.).

The curator of the fossil collection at Harvard’s Museum of Comparative Zoology, Stephen Jay Gould, wrote about the Haeckel fraud: “Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases—in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent—simply copied the same figure over and over again” (Natural History, March 2000). Gould further commented on the deleterious effect of such “inaccuracy” when it is reproduced in a textbook and not corrected: “The smallest compromise in dumbing down by inaccuracy destroys integrity and places an author upon a slippery slope of no return.”

Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings are presently in at least ten major biology textbooks published from 1998 through 2000. In each case, they are used to demonstrate the supposed similarity of early embryos in different animals and man, and the authors claim this is evidence of common ancestry and Darwin’s evolution hypothesis. These authors simply perpetuate Haeckel’s fraud in an effort to promote what they call the “theory” of evolution.

The problem is, the authors of modern science textbooks will include the faked pictures as proof of evolution even when they know of the fraud. Students are being taught these lies as if they are facts. The students then build their own belief system on such lies, only perpetuating the lies.

Even Darwin used the Haeckel lie. In his famous book, On the Origin of Species, Darwin called the similarity of embryos as reported by Haeckel “the strongest single class of facts” for evolution. The father of the “theory” of evolution used evidence from science literature already known to be false. There had already been many articles published in the mid-to-late 1800s which disproved the drawings of Haeckel, making it inconceivable that Darwin was not aware of the fraud. Yet he included Haeckel’s pictures not only as evidence for evolution, but also called them “the strongest single class of facts.”

There are many other specific examples of misinformation intentionally being published in textbooks. For example, the experiment performed in the early 1950s which supposedly reproduced the atmospheric conditions of the Earth billions of years ago continues to be reported in science textbooks. It claims to show how proteins were formed. The fact is, the scientific community has demonstrated that the environment within the test tubes was unlike any on Earth. There is no evidence the atmosphere was ever made up of the concoction used in this experiment, yet it is regularly referred to as a possible starting point from which all creatures have evolved.

Another example worth mentioning is that of the peppered moths. “Most peppered moths were light-colored in the early part of the 19th century, but during the Industrial Revolution in Britain the moth populations near heavily polluted cities became predominantly ‘melanic,’ or dark-colored. … [E]xperiments suggested that predatory birds ate light-colored moths when they became more conspicuous on pollution-darkened tree trunks, leaving the dark-colored variety to survive and reproduce” (Wells, op. cit.).

To demonstrate the camouflage of the dark moths, many books, when explaining evolution, have pictures of peppered moths on tree trunks. The dark moths blend in and the light moths stand out clearly. This is supposed to prove the theory of “natural selection.” But fraud and lies permeate this deception as well.

As ridiculous as it may seem, the pictures are themselves faked. Peppered moths do not land on tree trunks in nature; they light on the undersurface of small horizontal branches higher in the trees. One researcher (Cyril Clarke) noted that in 25 years of observation he had only seen one peppered moth on a tree trunk. So where did the pictures of peppered moths on tree trunks come from? Dead moths were glued or pinned to the tree trunks. This fact has been known since about 1980, and still the faked pictures are being published in textbooks as proof of evolution.

There are multitudes of other misleading statements, false conclusions and outright lies common to pro-evolution literature. These things continue to be included in modern science textbooks and articles. The reader must sift through the debris to find the facts.

The “Evidence”

Even with all the fraud currently found in science, there are facts that can be discerned. It takes patience and work to dig them out of the scientific literature, which is so biased in favor of evolution.

One of the easiest facts to discover about evolution is that of the missing links. The evolutionary hypothesis has changed through the years, but it always claims that the animals of today came from predecessors that were different. Birds came from reptiles, for example. Some scientists believe these changes happened slowly over tens of millions of years, while others believe they happened somewhat quickly, perhaps changing in only 5 million years or so. In either case, the changes are supposed to have happened randomly and resulted in life as we see it today.

Evolutionists suggest that many different genetic changes occurred, but only the changes that caused an advantage of some sort remained. In other words, the animals with the weakest changes died out and the stronger, more beneficially changed animals lived on and continued to change.

Here is where the links are missing. If reptiles somehow changed and became mammals, there should be fossils representing the intermediate steps. But there are none. These missing intermediate fossils are referred to as “missing links.” And no matter what animal is studied, without exception, there is a gap in the records where these “missing links” exist. Through the millions of years and billions of animals it would take to evolve from one species to another, there is not a single fossil to demonstrate the link from one species to another. Yet the evolutionists base their conclusions on such connecting links as if they were commonplace in the fossil record.

Duane T. Gish, Ph.D., in his book Evolution: The Fossils Still Say NO!, states, “Even though this transition is supposed to have taken 100 million years, not a single intermediate [fossil] has ever been discovered.”

According to anthropologist Tom Kemp, in his famous review, Mammal-like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals, “In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another.”

This admission of missing links is nothing new, as is demonstrated by this statement from 1930 by Dr. A.H. Clark in The New Evolution: Zoogenesis: “No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life upon Earth, we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediate between the various major groups or phyla.”

Not one “missing link” has been discovered. This represents a huge piece of the evolutionary pie that is missing, and it cannot rationally be ignored. But that is exactly what pro-evolution scientists do. They refuse to release their grip on evolution even when the evidence contradicts their claims.

Even Darwin was aware of the missing evidence for evolution. Evolutionist Sir Edmund Leach stated in Nature 293:19 (1981), “Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.”

Evolutionists claim that if one creature is physically similar to another, it is evidence of a common ancestor. An example used to demonstrate this hypothesis is found in the bones of the forelimbs of various animals and man. Pictures of the bones in whale flippers, monkey arms and human arms do appear similar.

The possibility that bones in the forelimbs are similar because they were planned and created by the same Designer seems to elude the thinking of evolution scientists. Why? If science is a search for truth, shouldn’t scientists consider every option? It seems they will consider every option except that of God.

Spontaneous Generation

The idea that life sprang forth from some primordial ooze is at the foundation of the evolutionary concept—that is what evolutionists claim caused life on Earth to begin. However, the idea of spontaneous generation was disproved centuries ago.

Aristotle wrote, “Larvae of the bee or wasp, ticks, fireflies and many other insects develop from the morning dew, or from decaying slime and manure, or from dry wood, hair, sweat and meat” (The Origin of Life, A.I. Oparin). He claimed that worms were generated by moist soil. “Man,” he speculated, “may have a similar origin.” Aristotle’s vain speculations were accepted as truth for many centuries.

In 1668, an Italian named Redi struck this old idea with a fatal blow. The Ambassador College Bible Correspondence Course wrote: “By placing gauze over a jar of meat, he prevented flies from depositing their eggs on the meat. He thus prevented the hatching of maggots, which people had been led to assume would spring spontaneously as ‘new life’ from dead matter.

“After the microscope was invented in 1683, the masterly work of Tyndall and Louis Pasteur proved conclusively that the ‘law of biogenesis’ [that life can come only from life] held true for microscopic forms of life as well!

“Evolutionists, geneticists, biologists, scientists in any field whatsoever, have never been able to demonstrate, nor to offer the slightest evidence that the living can come into existence from the not-living!

“George Wald, professor of biology at Harvard, admits, ‘One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation’ (The Physics of Life, p. 9). Notice that some scientists are so steeped in the theory of evolution, they cannot bring themselves to fully accept the absolutely irrefutable proof of scientific laboratory experiments!” (lesson 11).

Ask a paleontologist, geologist, archeologist or geneticist if he believes in spontaneous generation, and he will tell you that it was disproved several hundred years ago. Ask him how life started, and he will tell you it started from lifeless chemicals possibly heated by a spontaneous lightning strike. As Dr. Wald stated above, this is “impossible”!

There is something wrong with a thought process ending with an “impossible” conclusion. At best, it is irrational; at worst, it is intentional deception. Either way, such reasoning is commonplace in the literary support for evolution.

The Diabolical Plot

It may be a difficult task to sort out the facts from the fiction when researching the “theory” of evolution. But harder still for most people is giving up an idea even when it is proven to be wrong. Educator Herbert W. Armstrong wrote, “The most difficult thing for any human seems to be to admit being wrong—to confess error of belief and conviction—to unlearn false knowledge as well as to learn true knowledge” (Mystery of the Ages).

The “theory” of evolution has repeatedly been proven wrong, yet scientists will not admit they have been wrong. They refuse to give up false knowledge and make room for the truth. Their commitment to the false “theory” of evolution is great indeed.

There is only one scenario that fits all the evidence perfectly, and that is creation! The facts support the planned, guided and purposeful design and creation of everything in the physical universe.

The presence of only levo-amino acids in living materials is so mathematically improbable (see sidebar, above), the only way it makes sense is if it was purposely designed—and that requires a Designer and Creator. No other model works.

The anti-creation bias is so deeply rooted within the scientific community that many scientists may not even realize its presence. Their willingness to rely on and teach known lies to students in elementary, secondary, university and graduate studies proves how far they are willing to go to try to substantiate their uncorroborated “theory” of evolution.

Actually, the illogical and otherwise unexplainable vivacity with which evolution is being promoted is evidence of a Creator. There is no other reason for intelligent men and women of science to retain their beliefs in view of the facts. The only rational explanation is a spiritual adversary.

God the Creator has an enemy, Satan the devil, who opposes Him in everything. The influence of God’s enemy on the thinking of scientists becomes obvious when they dismiss the truth and accept such lies.

Nearly 2,000 years ago, the following statement was written: “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind …” (Rom. 1:28). Satan has displaced God from the thinking of most humans and God has allowed a “reprobate mind” to be the result. This lack of logic is evident throughout the “theory” of evolution and in the scientists who embrace it.

A few men through the years have recognized the attempt to remove God from the picture systematically. In an article published in the Spectator in 1860, summarizing Darwin’s book about evolution, Adam Sedgwick stated, “From first to last it is a dish of rank materialism cleverly cooked and served up. As a system of philosophy it is not unlike the Tower of Babel, so daring in its high aim as to seek a shelter against God’s anger; but it is like a pyramid poised on its apex. It is a system embracing all living nature, vegetable and animal; yet contradicting—point blank—the vast treasure of facts that the Author of nature has, during the past two or three thousand years, revealed to our senses. And why is this done? For no other solid reason, I am sure, except to make us independent of a Creator.”

Mr. Armstrong once wrote, “Evolution is Satan’s most powerful modern weapon. It is Christianity’s greatest enemy” (“Putting the Evolution Concept Into Your Child’s Mind,” 1950).

Explaining the reason for such staunch espousal of the “theory” of evolution, Mr. Armstrong wrote in The Missing Dimension In Sex, “Science as a whole, and higher education, have exercised the academic freedom to postulate a creation without a Creator.” The “theory” of evolution demonstrates the depth to which men are willing to go in an attempt to explain creation and leave out God.

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction” (Prov. 1:7). Herein is the problem. Men, wanting to have no authority over them, refuse to fear God. They seek any possible explanation to remove the Creator and His rule from their lives. They are, perhaps unknowingly, allies of Satan as assailants of God.

It is possible to discern the truth with careful scrutiny and work. But first to be able to learn the full truth, it is necessary to fear God. Then the real truth about the creation and the Creator may be discovered. God wants mankind to be fully aware of His existence and His plan for the universe!

Satan’s influence can be seen in every aspect of human reasoning, and that includes the hypothesis of evolution. Deception has been used in an effort to imprison mankind with ignorance, and evolution is one such attempt.

Jesus Christ made it clear that we can be set free from the lies of this world. Seek real truth is the only way to obtain freedom from ignorance. As He said in John 8:32, “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

Truth will be revealed to you if you seek it with a genuine honest approach....

If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

[Stumpy 256]

Here we go again. You posting a load of stuff that reveals in the first few sentences how little you understand about evolution.

Edited to add,

But if it makes you feel better to believe the world was created by a fictional being, fair play to you.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[shropshire 0]

And God evolved and evolution does not exist... thus bringing to question his own existance

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[skysaintj 0]

Quote

Here we go again. You posting a load of stuff that reveals in the first few sentences how little you understand about evolution.

Edited to add,

But if it makes you feel better to believe the world was created by a fictional being, fair play to you.

I have read up enough to know it's the saddest thing that ever got promoted .The evolution theory will and have unfortunately been responsible for so many lives to go to waste without knowing the truth …. I’m only trying inspire someone outhere and start a thought process that if all goes well go a little further than us being here for no reason at all.

If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

[Stumpy 256]

You obviously haven't read enough because you haven't read the consistent, accurate and scientific explanations that many people have given you in previous threads. Or any of the well written and non partisan books on the subject. or any of the scientific papers on the same .

Do you feel that if you keep saying the same rubbish it becomes true??

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[CanuckInUSA 0]

If you believe in Satan, then can I tell you a few stories about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny? There may or may not be a God, but if he/she/it exists it's not in the form that human religions have made him/her/it out to be. Maybe you should pay more attention to science (things like physics, mathematics and astronomy) and less time in bible camp.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[skysaintj 0]

Quote

You obviously haven't read enough because you haven't read the consistent, accurate and scientific explanations that many people have given you in previous threads. Or any of the well written and non partisan books on the subject. or any of the scientific papers on the same .

Do you feel that if you keep saying the same rubbish it becomes true??

....as i said before all evolutionists have their entire lives and reputations resting upon Darwin's theory. They're committed to their religion, just as any true Christian is committed to his. If an evolutionist changes his views, then he denies and forsakes his fellow scientists and former educators. He becomes a "black sheep," loses his job, his reputation, and his social standing. Since he has studied and worked his entire life to get where he is, he isn't about to throw it all away.There have been enough scientists and scientific based theories etc..on both sides of this ongoing debate otherwise we won't have these kind of threads running wild all over the planet(see attachment) so science caters for both partiesdon't forget that.

Bottom line is as stated in the Bible for that specific reason - You will have to make a CHOICE there is no right no wrong until judgement day.

Satan will deceive you into believing anything but God's existence - that is what his soul purpose is.

Like i said one person would be good i would also love it to be you

If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

[Gene03 0]

I disagree with skysaintj, Satans' biggest deception is convincing humans that he doesn't exist.

“The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all is the person who argues with him.

Stanislaw Jerzy Lec quotes (Polish writer, poet and satirist 1906-1966)

[skysaintj 0]

Quote

If you believe in Satan, then can I tell you a few stories about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny? There may or may not be a God, but if he/she/it exists it's not in the form that human religions have made him/her/it out to be. Maybe you should pay more attention to science (things like physics, mathematics and astronomy) and less time in bible camp.

I have not been to any church,church group meeting , any bible camp or anything related in more than 10 years ....i can understand why people do not want to go near anything God or religion related...it's almost as sad as evolution cause people either sit and chow popcorn or get in there and really mess things up.

If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

[Stumpy 256]

Quote

....as i said before all evolutionists have their entire lives and reputations resting upon Darwin's theory. They're committed to their religion, just as any true Christian is committed to his. If an evolutionist changes his views, then he denies and forsakes his fellow scientists and former educators. He becomes a "black sheep," loses his job, his reputation, and his social standing. Since he has studied and worked his entire life to get where he is, he isn't about to throw it all away.There have been enough scientists and scientific based theories etc..on both sides of this ongoing debate otherwise we won't have these kind of threads running wild all over the planet(see attachment) so science caters for both partiesdon't forget that.

Bullshit. there is science on one side of the argument only. Oh, and its not yours.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[unformed 0]

I agree with you that evolution is a crock. However, God is really comes in the form of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I have a book here that says so. And if you don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, when you die he's going to send you to the Great Tomato Sauce, which is no fun for anybody.

I really hope I can convert somebody to the truth. I don't want people's souls to be sent to the Great Tomato Sauce. I shudder at the thought.

This ad space for sale.

[SpeedRacer 1]

*** Bullshit. There is nothing about Evolutionary Theory that contradicts the Genesis Account of creation. Scientific textbooks are not spiritual guides, nor is the Bible a scientific guide.


Look, you use science for describing the physical mechanisms of creation.

You use religion for describing the spiritual aspects of creation.



The fundamentalist atheists and the fundamentalist christians need to stop trying to swap one in for the other.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Stumpy 256]

Absolutely agree. Evolution and creation can coexist.

I am not an Atheist but this kind of intentional ignorance is enough to turn me into one.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[Stumpy 256]

Thankyou!!

At least someone is seeing sense!

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[skysaintj 0]

Quote

Absolutely agree. Evolution and creation can coexist.

I am not an Atheist but this kind of intentional ignorance is enough to turn me into one.

I agree if you are refering to micro-evolution(adaptation).


Question - There's are scientists that know alot more than you or me and some that have recently agreed after years of devoting their attention and studies to these theories etc that evolution (macro) and from a origins of life point of view is impossible until proven as fact not theory...which until today is still just a theory but taught as fact in your schools - it's a shame really and satan is pissing himself ...

More scientists are agreeing now than ever before that Darwin fed the world a real stinker...some attached.

If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

[SpeedRacer 1]

My point is it's not one or the other.
Satan is irrelevant when discussing physical mechanisms.

Science is for science and religion is for religion.

The problem with using I.D. and Creationism as science is they don't propose any physical mechanism. They just say God did it. And that's supposed to be a substitute for science?? You're just repeating what I already believe as a Christian: That God created all life.

But that isn't science!

If it was science, it would propose some description as to the physical mechanisms by which the molecules & genes & so forth were physically moved & arranged to produce the different species. Just saying "God did it." does nothing to describe HOW it was done.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[unformed 0]

I agree they shouldn't be teaching theories in school as fact. While we're removing evolution from the curriculum though, I think we should remove a lot of other theories as well. I have a book here that tells me what really happens. Here's a lot of theories that haven't been proven as fact yet, and I just don't think they're valid:

Chemistry: Atomic theory — Kinetic theory of gases

Climatology: Theory of Global Climate Change (due to anthropogenic activity)

Computer science: Algorithmic information theory — Computation theory

Engineering: Circuit theory — Signal theory

Geology: Plate tectonics

Mathematics: Chaos theory — Graph theory — Number theory — Probability theory — Set theory

Physics: General relativity — Special relativity — Theory of relativity — Quantum field theory


All of this can be far better explained by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He knows the real facts behind everything, because everything is part of the Great Bowl of Soup which he created.

This ad space for sale.

[Nightingale 0]

Theories never become facts. They're theories.

Theories are not just fuzzy, uncertain ideas that are a step on the path towards becoming facts. A theory is not a fact, and a fact is not a theory. A fact is an observation, something that can be seen to be true or false with little or no interpretation. A theory is a conceptual framework that explains existing observations and predicts new ones.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Theories never become facts. They're theories.

Theories are not just fuzzy, uncertain ideas that are a step on the path towards becoming facts. A theory is not a fact, and a fact is not a theory. A fact is an observation, something that can be seen to be true or false with little or no interpretation. A theory is a conceptual framework that explains existing observations and predicts new ones.

This perspective plays into the hands of the creationists' slogan, That's why its called the "theory of evolution". Maybe you're willing to let yourself get sucked into the creationists' semantic games, but I for one refuse to dance their dance, or let them define the rules of the discussion.

There was a time when the Earth being (nearly) spherical, and not flat, was a theory. Same for the Earth revolving on its axis and being in orbit around the Sun. Same for the stars in the sky being other suns, and not just points of light in the sky. Today all of these are no longer referred to as "theory"; they're referred to as "facts", and quite properly so.

When Darwin first postulated evolution, it was theory. In the 21st Century, evolution is fact. Some of its details may still be yet to be deciphered, but it is fact.

[unformed 0]

Quote

Theories never become facts. They're theories.

Theories are not just fuzzy, uncertain ideas that are a step on the path towards becoming facts. A theory is not a fact, and a fact is not a theory. A fact is an observation, something that can be seen to be true or false with little or no interpretation. A theory is a conceptual framework that explains existing observations and predicts new ones.

Exactly so it might as well be that all of these so-called "scientists" have a massive conspiracy to get people to stop having faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. This is bad, because it is only the Flying Spaghetti Monster who knows the real truth and the facts behind everything. But he doesn't tell us these because he wants to test our loyalty to him.

It is unfortunate that we even have "science" class when all kids really need to be taught is the Way of Pastafarianism.

This ad space for sale.

[billvon 2,435]

>WAKE UP AND SEARCH ABSOLUTE TRUTH with everything you have within yourself . . .

Ah yes, truthiness! Truthiness is that "gut feel" that tells people things like evolution is false, muslims are evil, blacks are inferior etc. Sure, you can't find that stuff in any scientific research, but that's because scientists live in the fact-based community, not the truthiness community. A good description of truthiness:

---------------
Mr. President, my name is Stephen Colbert and tonight it's my privilege to celebrate this president. We're not so different, he and I. We get it. We're not brainiacs on the nerd patrol. We're not members of the factinista. We go straight from the gut, right sir? That's where the truth lies, right down here in the gut. Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your head? You can look it up. I know some of you are going to say "I did look it up, and that's not true." That's 'cause you looked it up in a book.

Next time, look it up in your gut. I did. My gut tells me that's how our nervous system works. Every night on my show, the Colbert Report, I speak straight from the gut, OK? I give people the truth, unfiltered by rational argument. I call it the "No Fact Zone." Fox News, I hold a copyright on that term.
-----------------

[Andy9o8 0]

Hm. So what's your point?

[billvon 2,435]

>The evolution theory will and have unfortunately been responsible for so many lives to go to waste . . .

Actually, it's saved a lot of lives. Now that we know that bacteria can evolve, we can do a better job of treating MRSA and VRE - infections that used to be fatal.

>I’m only trying inspire someone outhere and start a thought process that
> if all goes well go a little further than us being here for no reason at all.

Hey, if you have a belief that comforts you, then great. Just don't mistake "what feels good" for "what is scientifically correct."

[billvon 2,435]

>I agree if you are refering to micro-evolution(adaptation).

Evolution and micro-evolution are the same thing. It's like economics and micro-economics. Just different scales.

> There's are scientists that know alot more than you or me and
>some that have recently agreed after years of devoting their
> attention and studies to these theories etc that evolution (macro)
> and from a origins of life point of view is impossible until proven as
> fact not theory.

If any such scientist DID find such a big hole in evolutionary theory, there is no doubt whatsoever that he would win a Nobel and have no problems getting funding for the rest of his life. Yet that hasn't happened. I suspect creationists will chalk that up to a massive conspiracy to "keep the man down" but the reality is that scientists overturn theories all the time; it's how the scientific process works. Hasn't happened yet with evolution.

[kallend 1,649]

What a load of rubbish. I hope you didn't spend too long on it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.