Atheistic Evolutionists, Logic, and Faith

[rwdeese]

Epic troll post!  It sounds like a bad knock-knock joke.  This is NOT how the conversation would go at all...

Actually, this was a real conversation with a Geology Professor at a Universtiy. Sorry!

Atheistic Evolutionist (not all people who accept evolution are atheists, and vice versa): Creation is not a science because creationists do not have all the evidence have "evidence" that is irrespective and against the ACTUAL evidence.  It is junk science.

This is funny in light of the following absolutes.

The Evidence Popular Science Does not Possess:

1. No Evolution Presently Taking Place.
2. No New Species.
3. No Known Mechanism of Evolution.
4. No Unequivocal Transitional Fossil Evidence.
5. No Evidence Evolutionary Progression in Fosseil Sequences.
6. No Evidence that Evolution is even Possible.
7. No Evidence from Similarities between Organisms.
8. No Recapitualiton or Vestigial Organs - .
9. No Evidence from Molecular Biology.

What is interesting about this list - they are all made by leading evolutionsts. So those who place their faith in evolution have been undermined by their own, so to speak - I hate to confuse this issue with the facts. Oh well! The interesting criticism that states that creation science isn't science seems kind of bizarre in light of what all these scientists have plainly stated. I happen to agree with all these evolutions concerning these 9 points. What a conundrum! Creation science is no science, yet, this creationist agrees with these non creation scientists. In fact, these are the things we have been saying all along! For those reading this - remember, too make an absolute statement that says that a group is always wrong concening all their points of disagreement is not logical, but faisth based. Talk about trolling - good grief! I agree with scientists who are evolutionists - but only if they have the facts backing up their statements.

[rrechy225]

Evolution is a fact.  However, the means by which it happens is unknown to this day.  Ask any geneticist or evolutionist.  We KNOW that things evolve, we do NOT know how they evolve.  VERY different!

[rwdeese]

Keep in  mind the comparisons of faith:

Believer = presupposition - design requires designer.

Atheist= presupposition - design requires nothing spontaneously creating something

One is logical based upon our know reality. One is 100% illogical with not even a shred of evidence that this is possible. The presupposition has not basis of anything we know up to this point in time. This means that it is a fantasy based upon less evidence than what a natural understanding of life concludes. Namely, design requires a designer. Anything less has no basis of evidence known to man. This, my friend, is what is termed Blind Faith! This is the purest of all faiths. Why? Because we do not know of anything like this ever taking place. At least, believers have evidence that design always presupposes a designer.

To prove my point further, here is what harvard zoologist P.J. darlington wrote in "Evolution for Naturalists, p. 15":

The outstanding evolutionary mystery now is how matter has originated and evolved, why it has taken its present form in the universe and on the earth, and why it is capable of forming itself into complex living sets of molecules. This capability is inherent in matter as we know it, in its organization and energy.

He elaborates later in his book (p. 234)

Matter takes the forms it does because it has the inherent capacity to do so... This is one of the most remarkable and mysterious facts about our universe: tht matter exists that has the capacity to form itself into the most complex patterns of life

What? This is something I would expect in a Science Fiction book! This takes extrme faith!! 1. Matter came out of nothing. 2. Matter formed itself! Wow!

[shernajwine]

Excerpts taken from http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html

Science. According to the Oxford Dictionary science is "A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain."
 
The process is for a postulate is first formulated and then announced.  Then there are three things about this postulate that must be true before it can be considered a theory.

   1. The postulate must be observable.
   2. The postulate must be capable of repeatable experimental verification
   3. The postulate must withstand a falsifiability test, or an experiment conceived which the failure of the experiment would disprove the postulate.

 As Evolutionists have never observed any of the first four supposed evolutions they assume are true, they only talk about the last micro-evolution and try to define it as all five!   They constantly point out micro-evolution as being the proof of all the other four.

   1. Cosmic Evolution – Their Cosmology or how the Universe came into being.
   2. Stellar Evolution – How the stars, galaxies etc. formed
   3. Earth’s Evolution – How the Sun and the planets formed in our solar system.
   4. Macroevolution – The postulate that says all life formed from earlier organized non-life and through some form of mutation, natural selection, and enormous amounts of time.
  5. Microevolution – The limited variation that takes place in a species or families complex gene pool or genome.


From the points given above it shows us that both evolution and creation are postulates.  Neither have much of a chance of becoming a theory because of the difficulty of observing events that happened in the distant past and trying to have those events become repeatable.  When evolutionists become dogmatic in their speech as if evolution had been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, they are talking about micro-evolution and they are bluffing because they lack real proof.

Dr. Richard Lewontin, a geneticist, (a self proclaimed Marxist) , is a renowned champion of neo-“Darwinism and one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology.  He wrote the following comment. (Italics were in the original)

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.  It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.  Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.”
Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.

Dr. Lewontin makes it very clear “science” (evolution) may not be the best option, but it is the only option for no other option will be allowed.  That is not a scientific statement, but a philosophical statement.  In fact, this statement says that the philosophy of materialism or atheism is at the basis of science or evolution. I thought ‘scientists’ were to ob objective about the data and just follow the figures to the truth, whatever that was?  But Dr. Lewontin says that is not the truth, that there is a bigger truth than science and that is materialism or atheism.

[queenofnines]

The Evidence Popular Science Does not Possess:

1. No Evolution Presently Taking Place.
2. No New Species.
3. No Known Mechanism of Evolution.
4. No Unequivocal Transitional Fossil Evidence.
5. No Evidence Evolutionary Progression in Fosseil Sequences.
6. No Evidence that Evolution is even Possible.
7. No Evidence from Similarities between Organisms.
8. No Recapitualiton or Vestigial Organs - .
9. No Evidence from Molecular Biology.

Where are you getting this from??  Let me guess...from scientists that believe in god?

#1 To say there is no evolution presently taking place is absurd.  Evolution is CONSTANTLY happening, but it happens over a very long period of time and the changes that can be witnessed at any given time are very slight.  Evolution may have appeared to slow down for humans due to our evolved intelligence, but it is still present nonetheless.

#2 Scientists discover new species all the time, what are you talking about?!    And some species split off into entirely new species upon being geographically separated...evolving to adapt to their new environment!!

#3 Uh, Natural Selection...ever heard of drug-resistant bacteria?

#4, 5 Every fossil IS an intermediate form.  Archaeopteryx (dinosaur --> bird), Ambulocetus (land mammal --> whale), Tiktaalik (fish --> tetrapod), human skulls!!  No Crocoducks, though, sorry!

#6 Stop saying blatant lies.

#7 Compare the bone structure of many animals and you'll find it similar.  Some of these animals (like birds) LOSE bones during development (because they don't need that particular bone).  This would make no sense unless a common ancestor was present.

#8 Another blatant lie.  Look up pictures of various animal embryos and compare!  And a human appendix is a vestigial organ!

#9 Genetics prove we share a common ancestor with great apes.  Some genetic traits get passed on intact, while others result in mutations.  Either way, DNA fits perfectly within evolution.

Evolution - Evidence and "Gaps": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nTnjx-JRzE&playnext_from=TL&videos=ZzzBjfainlo

[rwdeese]

Excerpts taken from http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html

Science. According to the Oxford Dictionary science is "A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain."
 
The process is for a postulate is first formulated and then announced.  Then there are three things about this postulate that must be true before it can be considered a theory.

   1. The postulate must be observable.
   2. The postulate must be capable of repeatable experimental verification
   3. The postulate must withstand a falsifiability test, or an experiment conceived which the failure of the experiment would disprove the postulate.

 As Evolutionists have never observed any of the first four supposed evolutions they assume are true, they only talk about the last micro-evolution and try to define it as all five!   They constantly point out micro-evolution as being the proof of all the other four.

   1. Cosmic Evolution – Their Cosmology or how the Universe came into being.
   2. Stellar Evolution – How the stars, galaxies etc. formed
   3. Earth’s Evolution – How the Sun and the planets formed in our solar system.
   4. Macroevolution – The postulate that says all life formed from earlier organized non-life and through some form of mutation, natural selection, and enormous amounts of time.
  5. Microevolution – The limited variation that takes place in a species or families complex gene pool or genome.


From the points given above it shows us that both evolution and creation are postulates.  Neither have much of a chance of becoming a theory because of the difficulty of observing events that happened in the distant past and trying to have those events become repeatable.  When evolutionists become dogmatic in their speech as if evolution had been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, they are talking about micro-evolution and they are bluffing because they lack real proof.

Dr. Richard Lewontin, a geneticist, (a self proclaimed Marxist) , is a renowned champion of neo-“Darwinism and one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology.  He wrote the following comment. (Italics were in the original)

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.  It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.  Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.”
Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.

Dr. Lewontin makes it very clear “science” (evolution) may not be the best option, but it is the only option for no other option will be allowed.  That is not a scientific statement, but a philosophical statement.  In fact, this statement says that the philosophy of materialism or atheism is at the basis of science or evolution. I thought ‘scientists’ were to ob objective about the data and just follow the figures to the truth, whatever that was?  But Dr. Lewontin says that is not the truth, that there is a bigger truth than science and that is materialism or atheism.

Great Post! I actually have hundreds of quotes from evolutionists - you would be amzaed how uch of what they say is based on pure fantasy! It is quite humorous. What is sad is how people place thier faith in these guys! Not to say that they do not have some good points when they stay away from the esotoretic side. It reminds me of how some believers in Christianity will give theire money to some TV Evangelists without ever investigating their claims! oh well!

[rwdeese]

The Evidence Popular Science Does not Possess:

1. No Evolution Presently Taking Place.
2. No New Species.
3. No Known Mechanism of Evolution.
4. No Unequivocal Transitional Fossil Evidence.
5. No Evidence Evolutionary Progression in Fosseil Sequences.
6. No Evidence that Evolution is even Possible.
7. No Evidence from Similarities between Organisms.
8. No Recapitualiton or Vestigial Organs - .
9. No Evidence from Molecular Biology.

Where are you getting this from??  Let me guess...from scientists that believe in god?

You should read more books on Evloution. These come from quotes of those who do not believe in God, but in Evolution. Sorry! If you would like the sources, let me know. The fun is only beginning!

[queenofnines]

1. Matter came out of nothing. 2. Matter formed itself! Wow!

Yep, you are definitely proving you do NOT hold a Ph.D.  It's called the law of conservation of mass: matter cannot be created nor destroyed!!

[queenofnines]

I'm sorry for sounding mean, but it is EXTREMELY freaking frustrating dealing with people who mire scientific facts and denounce all of the progress we as a species have made thus far.

[queenofnines]

Any belief worth having must survive doubt.

Science does.  Religion doesn't.

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away

And when one stops believing in god they realize he was in their head all along.

I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other gods you will understand why I dismiss yours

Yep, mostly.

Truth in matters of religion is simply the opinion that has survived

Which is why mainstream Christianity has "evolved" to a nicer, gentler falsehood.

[liljp617]

I'm sorry for sounding mean, but it is EXTREMELY freaking frustrating dealing with people who mire scientific facts and denounce all of the progress we as a species have made thus far.

Don't bother with him/her (rwdeese).  Purposely trolling/flamebaiting.  Evidenced by the lack of response when I showed their math and proposal was baseless gibberish in the recent global warming thread.  Also evidenced by the ridiculous claims made in every post that are fundamentally factually false.

Waste of time and energy.  Use your brain for better things.

[queenofnines]

Waste of time and energy.  Use your brain for better things.

Indeed it is.  I guess I just worry if these lies go unchallenged, other people reading them will be influenced for the worse. 

[liljp617]

Excerpts taken from http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.html

I'll ignore the source for the sake of discussion.

Science. According to the Oxford Dictionary science is "A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain."
 
The process is for a postulate is first formulated and then announced.  Then there are three things about this postulate that must be true before it can be considered a theory.

   1. The postulate must be observable.
   2. The postulate must be capable of repeatable experimental verification
   3. The postulate must withstand a falsifiability test, or an experiment conceived which the failure of the experiment would disprove the postulate.

Quite agree.

As Evolutionists have never observed any of the first four supposed evolutions they assume are true, they only talk about the last micro-evolution and try to define it as all five!   They constantly point out micro-evolution as being the proof of all the other four.

   1. Cosmic Evolution – Their Cosmology or how the Universe came into being.
   2. Stellar Evolution – How the stars, galaxies etc. formed
   3. Earth’s Evolution – How the Sun and the planets formed in our solar system.
   4. Macroevolution – The postulate that says all life formed from earlier organized non-life and through some form of mutation, natural selection, and enormous amounts of time.
  5. Microevolution – The limited variation that takes place in a species or families complex gene pool or genome.

We run into some problems here.  

Mr. Wiggs is lumping multiple fields of science into a single theory.  The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, which is what is most often referred to in biology, is the not the same as cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, or Earth's geological evolution.  They're different topics of research found in quite different fields of science, and evidence for each topic varies.  It does us no good to discuss evolution by natural selection alongside cosmic evolution.

Continuing: You simply can't openly accept that microevolution occurs and then decline that macroevolution occurs.  They're the exact same thing -- merely on a different time scale.  The mechanisms for microevolution are precisely the same for macroevolution.  Scientists break evolution into these categories so it's easier to study and research, not because they're different occurrences.  Evolution by natural selection is evolution by natural selection; if you accept that evolution occurs by natural selection on a small scale, then given a large scale, it will continue to happen.

From the points given above it shows us that both evolution and creation are postulates.  Neither have much of a chance of becoming a theory because of the difficulty of observing events that happened in the distant past and trying to have those events become repeatable.  When evolutionists become dogmatic in their speech as if evolution had been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, they are talking about micro-evolution and they are bluffing because they lack real proof.

er well it's a scientific theory.  Observable?  We have observed evolution in nature and labs.  Repeated experiments?  Sure have.  Falsifiability?  Sure is.  The challenge that evolution is unfalsifiable has been made countless times over the years and the theory has continuously passed the test.  You can read of these examples at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution#Evolution_is_unfalsifiable

Lack real proof?  The Peppered Moth in England during the Industrial Revolution.  Microbial evolution -- antibiotic resistance, vaccine resistance, immune system resistance, superbugs, etc.  Diane Dodd's experiment with fruit flies.  Darwin's finches.  European gulls.  The list goes on and on.

Dr. Richard Lewontin, a geneticist, (a self proclaimed Marxist) , is a renowned champion of neo-“Darwinism and one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology.  He wrote the following comment. (Italics were in the original)

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.  It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.  Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door.”
Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.

Dr. Lewontin makes it very clear “science” (evolution) may not be the best option, but it is the only option for no other option will be allowed.  That is not a scientific statement, but a philosophical statement.  In fact, this statement says that the philosophy of materialism or atheism is at the basis of science or evolution. I thought ‘scientists’ were to ob objective about the data and just follow the figures to the truth, whatever that was?  But Dr. Lewontin says that is not the truth, that there is a bigger truth than science and that is materialism or atheism.

This one hurt the brain.  He takes one individual scientist's speech to speak for every single scientist in the world?  Let's be serious here...

Everyone knows religious evangelists and church leaders around the world from various religions say some absolutely ridiculous, wacky, heinous nonsense.  I wouldn't take what Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, or Pat Robertson says as the mindset or world view held by every Christian in the world.  Likewise, it would be silly to take what Lewontin says here as the mindset of all scientists and proponents of science.

How Mr. Wiggs recapped Lewontin's quote is precisely what should be said -- it is Lewontin's personal philosophy on science and nothing more.

[shernajwine]

Mr. Wiggs is lumping multiple fields of science into a single theory.  The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, which is what is most often referred to in biology, is the not the same as cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, or Earth's geological evolution.  They're different topics of research found in quite different fields of science, and evidence for each topic varies.  It does us no good to discuss evolution by natural selection alongside cosmic evolution.

his premise for lumping them together in this list is to point out the different types of evolution. they are all labeled as being a branch of evolution and he wanted to distinguish to the reader that simply using the term 'evolution' can cause friction when you don't understand which branch you are referring to.

Continuing: You simply can't openly accept that microevolution occurs and then decline that macroevolution occurs.  They're the exact same thing -- merely on a different time scale.  The mechanisms for microevolution are precisely the same for macroevolution.  Scientists break evolution into these categories so it's easier to study and research, not because they're different occurrences.  Evolution by natural selection is evolution by natural selection; if you accept that evolution occurs by natural selection on a small scale, then given a large scale, it will continue to happen.

the definitions listed for micro and macro clearly have distinctions and are NOT the same(from the article)microevolution to the creationist is the limited variation that can be expressed by the genome of a “species’ or family of plants or animals. It is the variation in the alleles of a genome as they are expressed in sexual reproduction and the mixing of alleles that occurs. These alleles are mostly not the product of mutations, but rather reside in the total genome of a population. See the genetics section for a further treatment of alleles in a genome.
 The Evolutionist sees microevolution as the cornerstone of evolutionary theory. They believe that it is billions of microevolution mutations in the genome, creating new alleles, and natural selection preserving those changes that is the process of evolution.
Creationists do not see microevolution as being able to drive the massive information gain that needs to occur for evolution to be possible, that is the ameoba to man evolution concept. Microevolution changes mainly occur through the practice of selective breeding. There are no “mutations” in selective breeding or in genome adaptation to the environment.  The complex changes that occur are already in the genome and are merely being brought out from human or environmental pressure.

er well it's a scientific theory.  Observable?  We have observed evolution in nature and labs.  Repeated experiments?  Sure have.  Falsifiability?  Sure is.  The challenge that evolution is unfalsifiable has been made countless times over the years and the theory has continuously passed the test.  You can read of these examples at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution#Evolution_is_unfalsifiable

Lack real proof?  The Peppered Moth in England during the Industrial Revolution.  Microbial evolution -- antibiotic resistance, vaccine resistance, immune system resistance, superbugs, etc.  Diane Dodd's experiment with fruit flies.  Darwin's finches.  European gulls.  The list goes on and on.

the lack of proof referred to here is based on the lack of ability to observe and is referring to the evolutionists theories of the beginning of life and the history of the universe (not the observable and undenied facts of microevolution). the author (in my interpretation) was saying evolutionists use microevolution as a bluff for the validity and proof of evidence for the other branches. the history of the universe was not observable.

the peppered moth and the other things you mentioned are all examples of a species whose DNA was not added to but merely scrambled. they are examples of changes within a species but cannot be shoved into explaining the origins of life. and on top of the fact that the study on the peppered moth was already proven to have staged photos.

Everyone knows religious evangelists and church leaders around the world from various religions say some absolutely ridiculous, wacky, heinous nonsense.  I wouldn't take what Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, or Pat Robertson says as the mindset or world view held by every Christian in the world.  Likewise, it would be silly to take what Lewontin says here as the mindset of all scientists and proponents of science.

i wouldn't assume that one statement encompasses all of science opinion. however this is one statement out of many that have come from evolutionists that shows how they are only willing to think within the box of evolution.
Quote from http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/think/psych.shtml
The strength behind the argument for evolution is based solely on intimidation and creating shame in the minds of those who oppose it. What evolution lacks in facts, they more than make up for in psychology and manipulation. When an evolutionist enters into an argument where creation and evolution are in conflict, they frequently precede the debate by laying the groundwork by defining the parameters in which you are allowed to think. You are allowed to think freely as long as you think inside the evolutionary box. This box is defined on the premise that evolutionary origins must be true and our current state has been achieved through that evolutionary origin. Thinking is encouraged as long as it does not take you outside of this box. The box is defined by two supposed facts: our evolutionary origin and our current evolutionary state.

but i have to say thank you to all my non believing friends here because you challenged me to think and find truth for myself and take into consideration that my beliefs were wrong. so i did, i read your posts, i watched videos, i even went to the library and i went to PRO evolution and atheism websites and sources..... and i find evolution wanting, i find creationism to be more true to me now than it was before....in the words of George H. Smith in his speech ‘Atheism: The Case Against God’, "one has nothing to fear and everything to gain from the honest pursuit of truth. It can never be against your interest to know what the truth is."

[queenofnines]

The strength behind the argument for evolution is based solely on intimidation and creating shame in the minds of those who oppose it. What evolution lacks in facts, they more than make up for in psychology and manipulation.

 Sherna, does this sound logical to YOU?  Do you not see how this is a bullying statement; it doesn't actually prove that evolution is false?  The strength behind evolution is the EVIDENCE.  Whoever said this quote is trying to mislead the reader into thinking that because they can merely assert something with confidence, that makes it true.  Sorry, IT DOESN'T.

This quote is employing the very manipulation it speaks of: a person reading it (a god believer) is automatically going to agree with whatever is being said so long as it "sounds good" and was presented in an authoritarian way.  It's why believers time and again take the word of people who agree with them...they see Ken Hovind or some other asshat present scientific-looking "proofs" that sound real good so long as one doesn't ask questions or check the facts...  

Time and again, creationist "science" does not stand up to reality and truth; most believers are not concerned with this, however.  OF COURSE YOU'RE GOING TO FAVOR THE SIDE THAT YOU WANT TO BE TRUE (god, heaven) over the cold, hard b*tch that is actual reality (no personal god, no heaven).

lol  I am done with my rant.  

P.S.  Evolution wasn't even a factor for me when I went from Christian to atheist.