Evolution is a psuedoscience, myth, and simply just a religion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-08-2015, 09:52 AM
RE: Evolution is a psuedoscience, myth, and simply just a religion
(22-08-2015 09:32 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  Heres more evidence against the myth of evolution...

Evolution is a 'BIG LIE'



All the following letter was sent in by a Christian friend see credits in the end and was NOT written by myself, except
for this first paragraph, and yet I totally agree with its contents scientifically and spiritually.. Why because it totally
destroys the myth of Evolution, for all Creation was made by the Creator (Jesus) which can be proven by science and seen
through design according to reason and logic and all fields of science rather than theories.and Evolution, the Biggest Lie
ever told. If you want other proofs and my writings, please hyperlink to Creation versus Evolution. Thanks and enjoy the
truth of Creation rather than the Lie of Evolution. . . . . . . . . David Jay Jordan .... B.Sc.
**********************************
Evolution is a total LIE scientifically because there is absolutely no evidence to back it up. Hence it is a religion forced
upon students. and religiously believed even by those that haven't studied Science. Yet because the BIGGER the lie is,
and evolution is a BIG LIE, then the more people are apt to believe it, because they can't possibly believe you would dare
to tell such a big lie unless it was the truth!.. SO THE DEVIL WAS SMART WITH EVOLUTION. HE TOLD THE BIG
LIE: "In the beginning, God didn't create the Heavens and the Earth; it just happened by some kind of a big accident,
forces working on the materials, and blah, blah, blah. Therefore, man is merely a beast who evolved from lower forms of
beasts over millions of years, from one species to another, and life originated itself spontaneously from chemicals!"

THIS DOCTRINE OF DELUSION HAS BECOME THE GENERAL THEME OF MODERN SO-CALLED SCIENCE, and is
therefore no longer true science, but pure, imaginary, evolutionary bunk! Evolution is now referred to as the "great
principle" of biology. But a principle, according to the dictionary, is a foundation truth, or fact, the basis of other truths.
And if you know anything about evolution at all, you know it has never been proven to be either a truth or a fact, much
less the foundation or the basis of other truths.

Now when I'm talking about evolution, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT OR MINIMIZING THE TRUE SCIENCE OF TRUE
BIOLOGY, which can be proven--how plants grow and animals propagate and multiply and so on. I'm talking about a wild,
fictitious fairytale of imagination which they have never come close to proving!. THERE IS NO PROOF FOR
EVOLUTION! It has to be believed, therefore it's a faith, therefore it's a religion! So they're teaching a new compulsory
religion in today's hallowed halls of higher learning. Even the great high priest and founding father of this new false
faith, Charles Darwin himself, confessed that "the belief (note the emphasis on belief) in natural selection (evolution)
must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations. ... When we descend to details, WE CAN PROVE THAT
NO ONE SPECIES HAS CHANGED ... NOR CAN WE PROVE THAT THE SUPPOSED CHANGES ARE BENEFICIAL,
which is the groundwork of the theory."

Darwin's ardent apostle and dedicated disciple, Thomas Henry Huxley, likewise admitted that his own opinion was NOT
grounded on any true scientific facts or evidence, but was more of a "religious" expression: "I beg you once more to
recollect that I have no right to call my opinion anything but AN ACT OF PHILOSOPHICAL FAITH.". SO EVOLUTION
IS REALLY A RELIGION OF UNBELIEF IN GOD. And that's its whole purpose; To eliminate faith in God and to foster
the false doctrine of devils that the creation created itself and God had nothing to do with it, so there doesn't need to be a
God--it could have happened without Him!

(Excerpt from ....http://www.davidjayjordan.com/EvolutionisaBIGLIE.html )

Its ten pages though with hyperlinks.... if you have a question just ask..... if you have the elusive missing link just take a pic and show it, if you have any evidence for evolution as a fact and not as a theory.... be the FIRST to have found it, and get due credit for your digging)

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid838036

Sorry but I refuted this already.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 09:54 AM
RE: Evolution is a psuedoscience, myth, and simply just a religion
(22-08-2015 09:03 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 08:47 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  What do you know about morals? Lets ponder why only .07 percent of US prisoners are non-religious, and 70+ percent are christian Consider

Most prisoners are there because of poverty, the rich hardly ever go to jail even though they commit the majority of crimes. Many prisoners are there because of drugs, which the rich want them to have, as the rich make money on drug dealing, it also keeps them subdued and lethargic and on the brink.

The word Christian is just used as a very broad term and does not indicate a true belief system. Most labels are for the shallow, as they love labels and pigeon holing. There is a huge difference between Christians and Churchies, the churchies as per usual and throughout history battle Christians endlessly.

SEE Jesus thread HERE

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...em-because

But lets get back to the topic and stick to the topic.

This thread is about the myth of Evolution, as it mists arise and are breathed in, by the unaware

Seek education in the science and the proven fact of evolution.

The first reason why many in the general public doubt the theory of evolution is due to belief in a supernatural causal effect. If for example, one subscribes to one of the anthropocentric Abrahamic faiths, say for example Christianity, and then points to the Bible as argument from authority to explain the real world around us, and from whence we came, this prevents the believer from accepting empirical evidence of a scientific nature to explain life. Since religious belief requires faith, and faith is the belief in something without evidence, faith is a failed methodology in which to comprehend the inner workings of the world around us.

If a belief is based on insufficient evidence; than any further conclusion drawn from the belief will at best be of questionable value. This cannot point one to the path of truth. As a tool, as an epistemology, as a method of reasoning, as a process for knowing the world, faith cannot adjudicate between competing claims. The ONLY way to figure out which claims about the world are likely true, and which are likely false, is through reason and evidence. There is no other way….yet.

“Science is the antithesis of faith. Science is a process that contains multiple and redundant checks, balances, and safeguards against human bias and error. Science has a built in corrective mechanism..hypothesis testing...that weeds out false claims. Claims that come about as a result of a scientific process are held as tentatively true by scientists..unlike claims of faith that are held as eternally true with zero evidence. Related to this, claims that come about as a result of a scientific process are falsifiable, that is, there is a way to show the claims are false. This is not the case with faith claims. For example, there's no way to falsify the claim that the Norse god Loki was able to assume other forms.

Scientists try to prove claims false (falsification), unlike faith leaders who unequivocally state their faith claims are true. If a scientist can demonstrate that a popular scientific claim is false, he or she can become famous, get tenure, publish books, earn more money and become respected by her or his peers. If a preacher states that the claims of his faith tradition are false, he's excommunicated, defrocked or otherwise forced to abandon his position”...the stifling of growth and enlightenment basically.

Science is a method for advancing our understanding. It is process we can use to bring us closer to the truth, and to weed out false claims. Science thus is the best way we've currently found to explain and understand how the universe works. This doesn’t set well with those who clutch supernatural, extraordinary, and unprovable theological faith claims, and that is a problem as it not only impacts their ability to understand and accept basic scientific principles, but it actually creates a barrier to moving on to better methods of epistemology. The reason creationism is not taught in public school is because it lacks any evidence. There is a good reason evolution is taught in public school, it is because it has evidence.

A second reason why many in the general public doubt the theory of evolution is due to lack of education and understanding of scientific methods. The problem comes with the word theory, those unfamiliar with scientific terms think that theory is something, “not quite right”, a speculation, a guess, and very likely wrong.

“According to the Oxford English dictionary, a scientific theory is “a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.” (Coyne 2009) in science, a theory is much more than just a speculation about how things are: it is a well thought out group of propositions meant to explain facts about the real world.”

I believe it is due to lack of understanding of the plethora of empirical and scientific evidence proving evolution that prevents some from accepting it.

Reference:
Coyne, J. (2009) Why evolution is true. London. Penguin books limited

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
22-08-2015, 09:55 AM
RE: Evolution is a psuedoscience, myth, and simply just a religion
I can't find that Huxley quotation anywhere but on Creationist websites. I think someone made it up. It commonly happens when Jayzus People don't like one of their opponents: they'll just invent something he said and pass it around until everyone thinks it's real, like Darwin's alleged deathbed confession. Rolleyes

Here is a list of actual quotes by T. H. Huxley; see if you can find anything that sounds remotely like what you just quoted:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley

Open your eyes, man. You're being misled.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
22-08-2015, 09:58 AM
RE: Evolution is a psuedoscience, myth, and simply just a religion
(22-08-2015 09:32 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  Heres more evidence against the myth of evolution...

Evolution is a 'BIG LIE'



All the following letter was sent in by a Christian friend see credits in the end and was NOT written by myself, except
for this first paragraph, and yet I totally agree with its contents scientifically and spiritually.. Why because it totally
destroys the myth of Evolution, for all Creation was made by the Creator (Jesus) which can be proven by science and seen
through design according to reason and logic and all fields of science rather than theories.and Evolution, the Biggest Lie
ever told. If you want other proofs and my writings, please hyperlink to Creation versus Evolution. Thanks and enjoy the
truth of Creation rather than the Lie of Evolution. . . . . . . . . David Jay Jordan .... B.Sc.
**********************************
Evolution is a total LIE scientifically because there is absolutely no evidence to back it up. Hence it is a religion forced
upon students. and religiously believed even by those that haven't studied Science. Yet because the BIGGER the lie is,
and evolution is a BIG LIE, then the more people are apt to believe it, because they can't possibly believe you would dare
to tell such a big lie unless it was the truth!.. SO THE DEVIL WAS SMART WITH EVOLUTION. HE TOLD THE BIG
LIE: "In the beginning, God didn't create the Heavens and the Earth; it just happened by some kind of a big accident,
forces working on the materials, and blah, blah, blah. Therefore, man is merely a beast who evolved from lower forms of
beasts over millions of years, from one species to another, and life originated itself spontaneously from chemicals!"

THIS DOCTRINE OF DELUSION HAS BECOME THE GENERAL THEME OF MODERN SO-CALLED SCIENCE, and is
therefore no longer true science, but pure, imaginary, evolutionary bunk! Evolution is now referred to as the "great
principle" of biology. But a principle, according to the dictionary, is a foundation truth, or fact, the basis of other truths.
And if you know anything about evolution at all, you know it has never been proven to be either a truth or a fact, much
less the foundation or the basis of other truths.

Now when I'm talking about evolution, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT OR MINIMIZING THE TRUE SCIENCE OF TRUE
BIOLOGY, which can be proven--how plants grow and animals propagate and multiply and so on. I'm talking about a wild,
fictitious fairytale of imagination which they have never come close to proving!. THERE IS NO PROOF FOR
EVOLUTION! It has to be believed, therefore it's a faith, therefore it's a religion! So they're teaching a new compulsory
religion in today's hallowed halls of higher learning. Even the great high priest and founding father of this new false
faith, Charles Darwin himself, confessed that "the belief (note the emphasis on belief) in natural selection (evolution)
must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations. ... When we descend to details, WE CAN PROVE THAT
NO ONE SPECIES HAS CHANGED ... NOR CAN WE PROVE THAT THE SUPPOSED CHANGES ARE BENEFICIAL,
which is the groundwork of the theory."

Darwin's ardent apostle and dedicated disciple, Thomas Henry Huxley, likewise admitted that his own opinion was NOT
grounded on any true scientific facts or evidence, but was more of a "religious" expression: "I beg you once more to
recollect that I have no right to call my opinion anything but AN ACT OF PHILOSOPHICAL FAITH.". SO EVOLUTION
IS REALLY A RELIGION OF UNBELIEF IN GOD. And that's its whole purpose; To eliminate faith in God and to foster
the false doctrine of devils that the creation created itself and God had nothing to do with it, so there doesn't need to be a
God--it could have happened without Him!

(Excerpt from ....http://www.davidjayjordan.com/EvolutionisaBIGLIE.html )

Its ten pages though with hyperlinks.... if you have a question just ask..... if you have the elusive missing link just take a pic and show it, if you have any evidence for evolution as a fact and not as a theory.... be the FIRST to have found it, and get due credit for your digging)

Is this another math post?

(20-08-2015 07:52 PM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  This is a mathematics thread....

Ummm ... yeah. As others have already pointed out "Do you even math bro?" There is no math in that post.

(21-08-2015 01:38 AM)Davidjayjordan Wrote:  Or if they divide by 0, its still 0

No it isn't. The bro clearly does not math.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
22-08-2015, 09:58 AM
RE: Evolution is a psuedoscience, myth, and simply just a religion
(22-08-2015 09:55 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I can't find that Huxley quotation anywhere but on Creationist websites. I think someone made it up. It commonly happens when Jayzus People don't like one of their opponents: they'll just invent something he said and pass it around until everyone thinks it's real, like Darwin's alleged deathbed confession. Rolleyes

Here is a list of actual quotes by T. H. Huxley; see if you can find anything that sounds remotely like what you just quoted:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley

Open your eyes, man. You're being misled.

It was, because he died 4 years before the year the quote was said.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Metazoa Zeke's post
22-08-2015, 09:58 AM
RE: Evolution is a psuedoscience, myth, and simply just a religion
Since it is apparent you haven't been exposed to scientific facts of evolutionism, I will provide to you free of charge a book review I did on an outstanding book. As well as links to it and two others for the clicky.

Abstract
This paper will provide a critique and personal reflection on the textbook "Why Evolution Is True". The author will reflect on the themes presented in the chapters of the book and provide personal introspective analysis of the content within. It will describe the author’s personal epistemological approach to the concept of evolution. It will include the author’s perspective based on philosophy, theology and sociological aspects of the subject as well as demonstrate the authors scientific understanding of evolution. The author will lastly offer a critical evaluation of the ideas presented in these chapters.

Keywords: evolution, sonic hedgehog gene, homologies, vestigial structures, fossil record, dating methods, transitional fossils


What is evolution?
This fascinating book by Dr. Jerry Coyne is an extremely important look at the evolution debate ongoing today in this nation. The book begins by discussing one of the many top court cases that determined that the scientific facts of evolution should be taught in public schools. It is important that as a society, and as intelligent educated moral human beings, we continue to fight the continuous attempts by members of various Christian faiths, who strive to force the courts to allow them to interject some form of intelligent design into the public school system. This is truly a tragedy and an outright attack on the minds of our youth, potentially undermining the future success of this country and its ability to compete globally in math and science fields.

It is literally impossible to endeavor to grow intellectually on science-based subjects, like evolution, if one has a personal belief that the earth was created by an omnipresent, life creating super gene 6 to 10,000 years ago. This view of the real world around us stunts the believer’s ability to acknowledge, accept and learn to evaluate empirical evidence using reason, logic and scientific falsification processes.

To summarize the theory of evolution, one only has to understand that life on earth has evolved gradually over a long period of time from an ancient, primitive self-replicating molecule which evolved over time, creating many diverse living organisms.

Most likely the most controversial part of the evolutionary theory is natural selection. This is due to design in nature by a natural mechanical process that does not require supernatural, creation stories to explain its existence. This is controversial because those that subscribe to fabricated fairytales and invalid delusional supernatural transcendental belief systems do not like when you muddy the water with facts, reason, logic and empirical evidence. These people posit intelligent design as the answer, which is a religious argument lacking empirical support and offers no tenable hypothesis.

Written in the rocks
The amazing world of fossils, how they have intrigued us for so many years. How do we have fossils? It requires that the remains of a living organism, plant or animal, die in a body of water, since the bottom and be covered by sediment to prevent their decay. When you consider these very specific requirements is very easy to understand why the fossil record for the last 17 million years is spotty and incomplete. Scientists hypothesize that less than 1% of all species have fossil evidence for us to analyze. Thankfully, we had more than enough fossils show us how evolution proceeded, and to show how major species split off from one another over time.

To the educated, intellectual and rational person, the fact that the fossil record does not give any evidence in support of intelligent design or creationism, which posits that all species appeared suddenly and remain unchanged is of no surprise. To me the biggest blow to creationism, besides the fact that the whole idea is fabricated and can be traced back to its inception, is a simple fact that scientifically we can disprove it in so many ways. The biggest being the fossil record does not reflect or support in any way all life appearing at one time on the earth. This of course is the least of creationist supporters worries as every angle of their belief system can be dismantled piece by piece.

For me the single biggest piece of evidence is transitional fossils such as Tiklaalik, or Archaeopteryx, which show major transitions from fish to amphibian and reptile to bird. This is of course very inconvenient to those who clutch a delusion in order to comprehend the real world around us. Delusion; A belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. Which pretty much defines religion.

Remnants: vestiges, embryos, and bad design
This chapter discussed the result of adaptation in a species which produces a feature that has either lost its usefulness, or its purpose has been adopted for new uses is a vestigial. For example; wings of an ostrich, the human appendix which was very important to our ancestors who primarily ate vegetation but is of no use to us, and the human coccyx. These are all vestigial traits which only makes sense to consider evolution as the cause. Another oddity is atavisms; an anomaly which appears to be the reoccurrence of an ancient ancestral trait. A human baby born with a tail, or a horse born with extra toes. They differ from vestigial traits because they rarely occur, rather than be present in every individual.

I found these examples personally fascinating, how interesting that even today we can see the rare appearance of ancient traits and human and animal species. If we were created, by some anthropocentric, Abrahamic based version of a God for example, why would we have these ancestral traits which reflect our mutation as a species from another species over a very long period of time. If we were created from a handful of dirt, or so the fairytale goes, why would we have the remnants of a tail inside of our body, and a fishlike circulatory system? Why would we have gill arch structures in our embryonic structure during our early development stages? To me, yet again, this indicates that we are exactly what evolutionary scientist have proclaimed, a successful mutation of Homo sapiens species over a very long period of time. It is fascinating to understand that as one species evolves into another, the new specie has inherited the genetic developmental programming of its ancestor, and this is proven over and over in this book.

The ample evidence of bad design refutes, yet again, the ridiculous posit of an intelligent designer. If we were created, we would not have so many imperfections. These imperfections are the mark of evolution and are exactly what we would expect to happen. The Laryngeal nerve of mammals is a good example of this. Another nail in the coffin for the fairytale, fabricated, anthropocentric concept of a creator.

The geography of life
As I went through this chapter and reflected on the vast amount of biogeographic evidence for evolution, I felt sorry for those who cling to the creationism concept. It must require a consistent amount of self-discipline, or self-delusion, to completely ignore the plethora of superior evidence that strongly contradicts their belief system. If I hold up a rock and say that it is 4.5 billion years old, and validate that posit with ample scientific evidence by the utilization of various proven dating methods, and a creationist says it is 6,000 years old and holds up a fictional book as evidence to the contrary, this is not a countering argument worthy of discussion. I guess that is why it is called blind faith.

Whenever a creationist has been asked to offer a credible explanation on why different types of animals have similar forms in distinctly different places, their only answer is the GODDIDIT excuse. Unfortunately for creationists, convergent evolution explains this very well. Species that live in similar habitats will have experienced the same environmental stressors, and thus evolve with similar genetic adaptations. When we perform archaeological digs in one area we should find direct descendents of earlier species that lived in this area, to no surprise this is what we find. Yet again, another nail in the coffin of creationism.

Creationism would have to propose that there had occurred an endless number of successive creations and extinctions worldwide, and each set of newly created species were made to look like older ones that lived in the same area. This is about as plausible as the ridiculous Noah’s Ark story which was based on the epic of Gilgamesh myth. Perhaps it is time we discard the chicken bones, tea leaves and fairytales and accept the real, tangible, empirical evidence at hand.

The engine of evolution
Evolution by selection is really a combination of lawfulness and randomness. First you have a random process, the occurrence of mutations that generate genetic change, and then a lawful process… natural selection, that orders this mutation, keeping the good in this guarding the bad by survival of the fittest theory. I found it intriguing when I read that adaptation increases the fitness of the individual and not the species. As the theory of evolution predicts, we never see adaptations which benefit the species at the expense of the individual. That would be something we would expect if living organisms were designed and created by magical sky genie.

Humans are a long lived and slow reproducing species with generation times of about 20 years or more. It is therefore difficult to observe inter-generational genetic change. Consider that only two reproductive generations have passed since the discovery of the structure of DNA. Much of the genetic variation that we see in human populations today developed within the past 50,000 years, after the spread of Homo sapiens out of Africa and into other parts of the world.

If you truly wish to see selection in action, then you should look at species that have short generation times and that are adapting to a new environment. One of the most derisive creationists concepts is what I call the God of the gaps argument. Basically wherever there is a gap in the theory of evolution’s trail of evidence, they posit God as the cause. There is no reason to position intelligent design as the answer to questions or gaps, simply because science has not yet found the answer. Science is the antithesis of faith. Science is a process that contains multiple and redundant checks, balances, and safeguards against human bias and error.

Science has a built in corrective mechanism; hypothesis testing. Proponents of intelligent design, a ridiculous pseudoscience, do not bother to clutter their perspectives with inconvenient facts, they simply claim to know the truth, based on a fictional disproven fairytale of a book called the Bible. When you push them into a corner with reason, logic and evidence, they simply wave it aside and pointed at the Bible. This is not countering evidence, this is delusional belief in a transcendental reality which has no place in the discussion of science.

How sex drives evolution
Although I am fairly fluent in most concepts dealing with evolution and scientific principles, I did not know how big a part sex had in evolution. It makes total sense, and now that I know about it through this course I accept it explicitly, but it is fascinating to consider the major impact that sex drive, a mate selection had on the evolution of the world today.

To me the impact and major contributing factor of sex and evolution is the simplest concept. Pretty much in all species, the female picks their mate, or the strongest male dominates all the females for reproduction. Thus ensuring those strong genes and genetic traits are passed on to their offspring. It all comes down to males must compete for females. Female choice of a mate has driven the evolution of many sexual dimorphisms.

When we look at the impact of sex, for example why are there only two sexes and not three or four? This is a common countering argument from those who work so hard to discredit evolution. As usual it is due to their lack of knowledge and biology that leaves them down the road to misinformation. Natural selection would favor a state in which one sex makes a lot of small reproductive material (sperm or pollen), and the other makes fewer larger reproductive material such as eggs. This results in males competing for females, the males should be promiscuous and the females coy in their decision and choice of a mate.

The origin of species
Darwin’s book changed the world and many ways, and inspired intelligent, educated thinking scholars to continue his work since then. Darwin identified how and why a single species changes over time by natural selection, but he never explained how one species divides into two. If we didn’t have speciation, we would only have a single, evolved descendent of that very first species. Darwin was a brilliant man, and I often wonder what was going through his mind as he started down this path of discovery.

While I was fairly familiar with the theory of evolution, speciation and the substantial supporting fossil record, I really had no idea how in depth, brilliant and solid the evidence really is. When you consider how different species not only look different, but had developed genetic barriers that prevent them from interbreeding with other species, even though they all can be traced back to the same common species. It amazes me that someone can wave aside the absolute all inspiring tonnage of evidence that supports evolution, speciation and transitional mutations, all because they have a disproven, fictional book written by groups of superstitious, religious fanatics 2000 years ago based on the oral retelling of a myth passed down from one family to another.

What about us
This was probably my favorite chapter as it talked about human genetic heritage. The fact that DNA evidence proves that we are evolved apes that descended from other apes, and that are closes current ape relative is the chimpanzee, who can be traced back to an older species that the split off from our own several million years ago in Africa. I find it interesting that with the current religiosity numbers that reflect that in the United States 35% of the population is nonreligious, and the 65% remaining (though thankfully dwindling in numbers more each year) believe in some form of religion, mostly Christian, and understand DNA evidence when it comes to criminal investigations and trials. However, wave that aside, when it is inconvenient that DNA evidence proves that we are descended from apes.

I always find it funny how you can pick and choose what you want to belief from the same source. Even within their holy book, “that Scripture is merely a parable”, “that Scripture is fact”, and how do you figure out which is which? Either DNA evidence is a solid, provable prima facie, or not. I submit to you that DNA evidence is a solid, provable prima facie, and thus proves we are descended from apes.

Evolution redux
This chapter really brings it home, some of the more enlightened creationist understand and even accept portions of evolution, and they were even state they find evidence for evolution very convincing, but they still don’t believe it. Someday books like this would not have to be written from a position of defending facts because the majority of the population clings to superstitious belief in a delusion. It is time to put aside the chicken bones, tea leaves, tarot cards and fairytales, and exchange them for empirical evidence, reason, logic and substantiated scientific truth. The fact that, religious belief (declining globally at an ever increasing rate) still holds a majority, does not give it validity due to the argument of popularity.

We need to strive to spread the truth, facts, and evidence to educate ourselves and our children based on our understanding of the real world. We can allow our personal beliefs in a transcendental dimension to be something we teach at home and at church, if that is desired or deemed necessary by the individual. Religion has no place in school as it is not based in fact. The two really are different subjects; Science and fiction, fact and faith.


Work cited:

Coyne, J. (2009) Why evolution is true. London: Penguin Books Ltd.

https://vialogue.wordpress.com/2012/05/0...es-review/

https://ogremk5.wordpress.com/2011/05/23...er-review/

http://ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-reas...oftheEarth

Look at you learning shit.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
22-08-2015, 10:09 AM
RE: Evolution is a psuedoscience, myth, and simply just a religion
(22-08-2015 09:58 AM)Metazoa Zeke Wrote:  
(22-08-2015 09:55 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I can't find that Huxley quotation anywhere but on Creationist websites. I think someone made it up. It commonly happens when Jayzus People don't like one of their opponents: they'll just invent something he said and pass it around until everyone thinks it's real, like Darwin's alleged deathbed confession. Rolleyes

Here is a list of actual quotes by T. H. Huxley; see if you can find anything that sounds remotely like what you just quoted:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley

Open your eyes, man. You're being misled.

It was, because he died 4 years before the year the quote was said.

The Creationist sites claim it was a passage in his book, Critiques and Addresses (1873), but I can't find a page number or other confirmation of the quote so far. What references I have found to this book contain a lot of stuff about revising the Bible and his actual agnosticism, and why he felt he needed to coin the term. But then again, it's a book of essays, so topics could vary widely.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 10:37 AM
RE: Evolution is a psuedoscience, myth, and simply just a religion
I'm gonna hafta agree, POE.

The last post was incoherent ramblings. If you want to disprove evolution provide evidence. All I've seen in any of your posts is just gibberish about improbability and personal incredulity. I don't care about your personal incredulity, my personal bafflement over geography does not make Kansas west of Colorado.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 10:45 AM
RE: Evolution is a psuedoscience, myth, and simply just a religion
Obviously we need this...

[Image: Pooper-Scooper-300x265.jpg]

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2015, 11:18 AM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2015 11:21 AM by Reltzik.)
RE: Evolution is a psuedoscience, myth, and simply just a religion
Okay. Lemme get this straight.

Having first boldly asserted that you would prove intelligent design through mathematics, only to be shown to know less math than the average high school graduate and having such a command of arithmetic that you would try to summarize evolution up as being a single value on the real number line and then claim that 0 divided by 0 was 0...

... and without ever acknowledging that your earlier claims to competency were... over-asserted, to put it politely (*cough*purebullshit*cough*), and without any examination of the underlying reasons WHY you claimed an authority in a subject far greater than you actually possessed, and without any consideration of whether those underlying reasons might cause you to over-assert your authority in another subject...

... you boldly and loudly assert that there is no evidence for evolution. And you expect the rest of us, who are AGAIN vastly more familiar with the topic than you are, to take you on your self-proclaimed authority, when we have already seen you proclaim yourself an authority in a different field where you are, in fact, inferior to the typical layman, much less the typical amateur enthusiast...

... and you do this to the SAME CROWD that already called bullshit on you the first time and sent you through the meat-grinder for it.

... someone isn't very bright.

Okay, aside from you sticking your fingers in the ears and loudly chanting "there's no evidence!" while standing atop a miniscule bathroom rug that fails to actually hide the thousand-foot-high mountain of evidence you attempted to sweep under it, you actually made one claim that was halfway substantial: That early evolutionary scientists (Darwin, specifically) acknowledged that the theory lacked strong evidence.

Why we would imagine that his statements of lack of evidence 150 years ago would still be applicable today is something you do not touch upon.

Nor do you even attempt to address any of the following factors that have been discovered since:

Chromosomes
Inheritance of chromosomes
Impact of specific chromosomes upon phenotype
DNA
DNA sequencing
Mechanisms of DNA reproduction
Egg-sperm fertilization as a mechanism for inheritance
Multiple mechanisms for mutation on the genetic level
An extensively expanded cataloging of the fossil record
Discovery of multiple fossil links between species
Organization of the fossil record into a clear progression by time
Records of genetic divergence inside the DNA of species
Close correlation of this genetic record to the fossil record
Documented examples of evolution and speciation by natural selection
Computer algorithms that harness the power of evolution by selection and would not work if evolution by selection could not work in principle
And many, many more.

But perhaps the most convincing evidence of all is that Darwin DIDN'T have this evidence. He didn't know the mechanisms for inheritance, but his theory predicted they would be there. He didn't know what the missing links were, but his theory predicted they would be there. He had only a tiny sample of the fossil record that we have today (which in turn is only a tiny sample of the whole), and yet he was able to predict that the fossil record would not contradict common descent, and discoveries since then have not.

One of the final arbiters of a scientific theory's value is its predictive power. By that standard, as evidenced by everything it predicted before it could be known, the theory of evolution by natural selection and common descent is one of the most valuable theories ever.

So the evidence wasn't available to Darwin 150 years ago (ignoring the evidence he DID have, which was actually very meticulous and carefully analyzed)... and therefore it doesn't exist now. That's the argument. To which, there can only be one response.





... well, there can be more than that one response, but they'll all follow the same theme.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Reltzik's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: