Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Evolution is a myth? Please explain:

What an arrogant prick. Your non-answer was understood for what it was. Are you saying that the fact that there are different faith-based beliefs negates all of them?

If so, does the fact that there are different theories on the same phenomenon negate all of those theories?

Maybe science isn't either? Once science had only four elements. Now the periodic table is open ended. And for how many hundreds of years were Newton's erroneous laws all but worshiped. Science is complete they said. It's easy to cite mistakes made along the way and sophistry to cite them as proof of something. Except humans make mistakes in all their endeavors.

And there is plenty of evidence starting with the high improbability of anthropic conditions which you seem to dismiss because they don't offer an ontological certainty. Or maybe it's just that they don't fit your desired result.

Arrogant prick now? Your true colours shine though, as does your Christian tolerance.

Insults instead of rational discussion. What I said was not understand.

What I pointed out was that if two faith based beliefs contradict each other, both cannot logically be true.

If for example Hinduism is true or right and Brahman is the creative principle of the universe, the Abrahamic faiths must be wrong because their's is a different God and a different theology...and that's without going into the differences between Judaism, Islam and Christianity.

So the issue is, someone has to be wrong. Everybody cannot be right.

This is logic, not arrogance.

Science is self correcting and does not claim to have all the answers. The discoveries of science are proof of its efficacy and its ongoing investigation into the natural world.

Can you expand on that? Can you give a description with examples? Something that defines your distinction between problematic faith and non problematic faith and what makes the difference.

And Theology with Philosophy are not, in the ongoing investigation into the transcendent?

Classical philosophy is not the same as Theology, but may encompass it. One of the first questions being, what exactly is being referred to, what does 'transcendent' mean in this instance? What does it refer to? How is it investigated? What are the results of this investigation?

If it is "biased creationist" material then it should be easily refuted, yet you've steadfastly refused to even attempt the refutation you claim is so easy. Why? You cite majority scientific opinion, but scientific truth is not decided by consensus, but by evidence. As Einstein famously remarked (when Hitler employed your tactic by trotting out a bevy of his scientists to declare Einstein wrong) "it only takes one person to prove me wrong". Thomas Kuhn, in his work "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" documents how scientific truth changes as old paradigms are discarded when new ones emerge which better explain the evidence. All morphological changes are the product of complex, coded information working in almost incomprehensible synchronicity. The complexity of the coded information necessary to instantiate even the simplest working cell is almost unfathomable and is infinitely more complex than the most sophisticated computer program. Natural selection cannot account for either the appearance of that information in the simplest living organism in the first instance, or the changes to that coded information that are necessary in the manifestation of changes in morphology. The information problem is insurmountable and natural selection has never been shown capable of doing the work. As I previously noted, If you took every particle in the Universe and turned it into a computers, each one weighing a millionth of a gram and each one able to spin out 488 trials a million times a second producing random letters and you did that from the inception of the universe, chance would still not be able to produce even something so simple as a Shakespearian Sonnet. Yet the DNA coding necessary to produce even a simple protein is massively more complex than a Shakespearian Sonnet. The a priori commitment of folks like you to philosophical materialism has utterly blinded you to the fatal weaknesses in Darwin's theory. But candidly, we don't even have to go to the evidence to see that the theory cannot possibly be true. All we have to do is look at the way almost all Darwinists, including you, argue their case---by the use of caricatures, strawmen and appeals to authority. Heavy reliance on logical fallacies are massive indicators of intellectual bankruptcy and are on full display in the responses of most Darwinists to the very cogent problems that complex coded information and Shannon complexity present to the Darwinian edifice. Indeed, your responses are shot-through with those self-same indicators of intellectual bankruptcy. If you had a case to make, you'd make it instead of continuing to embarrass yourself with your incessant invocation of logical fallacies.

infinity seems out of this world for us, on the other hand if its finite, then what's beyond the boundary of the universe..?

However adhering to religious dogma and limiting intellectual freedom, would not have allowed Einstein to break free
of the constraints of his Jewish upbringing and Newtonian physics.

There is no why. I have pointed out that evolution is so well supported by evidence that practically everyone in the field accepts it as proven, that there is no doubt that organisms evolve.




I don't cite scientific opinion because evolution is not an opinion. It is your opinion that it is an opinion. Science is not based on opinions, it is based on evidence and testing.

A for refutation of creationist misrepresentation and claims, that has been done by numerous qualified people, including the court case where both parties presented their argument and the intelligent design/irreducible complexity failed to make the grade.

Here is one creationist misrepresentation, the second law of thermodynamics;

Creationist Misunderstanding, Misrepresentation, and Misuse of the Second Law of Thermodynamics


''One of the cornerstones in the crumbling foundation of creationist "science" is the notion that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. The classical version of this law may be stated as follows: The entropy of an isolated system can never decrease. (An isolated system is one that does not exchange energy or matter with its surroundings.) Creationists originally argued that a decrease in entropy is exactly what evolution requires, hence the conflict with the second law. This argument was used in an article by Dr. Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) as late as 1973. As is the usual practice among creationists, he tried to support it with out-of-context quotations from the writings of respected scientists.''

Open Systems

The creationist argument given in the first paragraph contains a gaping flaw, and evolutionist debaters wasted no time in pointing it out: While the classical version of the second law does indeed state that the entropy of an isolated system cannot decrease, evolving systems are not isolated! One might expect that at this point the issue would be considered settled and everyone would pack up and go home. However, such an expectation would never be entertained by anyone familiar with the peculiar tenacity of creationists.

The Creative Trinity

According to this creationist concept, a system can become entropy deficient only if three conditions are satisfied (Morris, 1976). (1) Free energy must be supplied to the system. This is actually incorrect, since a loss of energy can also generate an entropy deficiency; however, the need for the system to be open is universally recognized, so further discussion is unnecessary. (2) The system must contain an energy conversion mechanism. When creationists are pressed, we find that just about anything qualifies as having a "mechanism," including matter itself, so the statement becomes quite meaningless.

Mutations and the Genetic Code

The growth of a seed or egg into a mature organism constitutes an observable process involving a large and spontaneous increase in the entropy deficiency of a localized system. Creationists naturally claim that the genetic code making this possible is just the directing program included in their Creative Trinity. It is certainly true that the genetic program determines just what the egg will grow into. But it is not true that this program is what enables the system to develop an entropy deficiency. In the course of a year, the earth receives 1.6 x 1021 watt-hours of energy from the sun and reradiates almost the same amount into space. But, because the incoming radiation originates on a high-temperature source (the sun) and the outgoing radiation on a low-temperature one (the earth), the whole process results in an outflow of entropy or inflow of negentropy. This negentropy flux can be calculated to be 3.2 x 1022 joule/ °K per year (Tribus and Mclrvine, 1971). A significant portion of this negentropy is used in biological processes directed by genetic programs, but a considerably larger portion is used to generate entropy deficient meteorological systems without the benefit of directing programs. Thus, the genetic program only insures that a small portion of the negentropy is used to develop a particular type of entropy deficient system. The only legitimate question left is whether the first bit of replicating genetic material could have come about naturally without violating the second law.

We may first note that all the information stored in a fertilized mammalian egg-cell is equivalent to only about 4 x 10-12 joule/ °K of negentropy. Ordinary everyday processes that we observe all around us spontaneously develop entropy deficiencies that easily amount to billions of times this amount. Thus, it is not the generation of the entropy deficiency that constitutes the problem, although this is what creationists imply when they say that a natural origin of the genetic code would violate the second law.

Experiments of the type first performed by Stanley Miller have shown that the basic building blocks of life—amino acids and nucleotides—are generated spontaneously in a reducing atmosphere, consisting of compounds of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, when energy in the form of electrical discharges or high-energy radiation is supplied. We are unable to choose at this time the particular mechanism whereby these units assembled themselves into proteins and DNA (or RNA) respectively; there are several possibilities. A more important question is the probability of the spontaneous formation of such a chain with sufficient autocatalytic properties so that, once formed, it would promote its own duplication. Once this hurdle has been overcome, evolution can be expected to proceed through the combination of mutations and natural selection, as discussed later. For years creationists have been indulging in calculations intended to prove that the formation of the original functional chain is statistically impossible. Let us examine one such attempt by Dr. Gish, also of ICR (1978).

Gish begins by assuming that a functional chain would need to consist of 100 amino acids of the 20 different kinds found in living organisms. He then states that there are 10130 different varieties of such a sequence, which is correct.


He then assumes arbitrarily and, he thinks, generously that 1011 of these variations might be functional. Stated more directly, he has assumed, entirely without justification, that only 1 out of 10119 combinations is useful. But, to show what an extremely generous man he is, Gish then assumes that 1021 varieties are formed every second during a period of 5 billion years. He is still perfectly safe, of course; with his assumption of 1 in 10119, the useful chain would never form. Gish doesn't mention whether anyone has systematically examined the properties of any significant number of such sequences. But even if thousands had been investigated, this would be nowhere near 10119, and it would be just as reasonable to assume that 1 in a trillion (1012), 1 in a billion (109), or even 1 in a million (106) has the desired characteristics. Actually, the evidence we have points in this direction. For example, examination of hemoglobins of different species shows that only 7 out of a total of 140 sites always have the same amino acid (Perutz, 1968). The probability of these 7 sites being correctly occupied, assuming again 20 different amino acids, is 1 in a little over a billion (1.3 x 109).

Now, if we go by what little evidence we have and make the far more reasonable assumption that 1 in 109 is functional, and assume further that only one sequence forms each second (anywhere on earth), a functional one could be expected to form in about 32 years! On the time scales we are dealing with, even 32 million years is nothing, so we too can be generous and assume that only 1 out of 1015 randomly generated 100-member sequences is sufficiently autocatalytic. Let us see Gish or anyone else prove this impossible!

Perhaps the greatest unanswered question in biological evolution concerns the manner in which proteins and DNA (or RNA) became associated with each other. Creationists maintain that because we don't now know how this happened naturally, it could only have happened through divine design, and it is useless to investigate it further. We are fortunate that such attitudes have not prevailed universally at all times or science would never have evolved out of the Dark Ages.

We may speculate on whether evolution could at one time have proceeded through mutations and natural selection involving chains of amino acids only, but in the present discussion we will leave aside these early developments, of which enough is not yet known. Let us look, instead, at the evolution of the genetic program from that of primitive organisms even simpler than (and different from) modern viruses, to that of complex ones such as mammals. Although we recognize the enormous amount of variation possible in the normal genetic mixing associated with sexual reproduction, the only way in which something entirely new can be introduced is through mutations, including such phenomena as gene duplication. Creationists contend that, because of the second law, only detrimental mutations are possible. An examination of the mechanism involved will show that this contention is absurd.''








Einstein was not a creationist. Nor has evolution proved to be wrong despite 150 years of research and opportunities to do so. Your creationist poster boys should publish their papers, outlining their case with evidence for support.

I think it kind of amusing that a religion which at the most charitable promoted the belief that the earth was the center of the universe and as late as the late 15th century prosecuted as heretics anyone who dared to make claim otherwise. It kind of leaves the religion and it's entire belief system on pretty shaky ground. Especially when you have to rely on the accuracy and integrity of the religion since few others in the world were even literate, much less educated.

It certainly calls into question whether or not we should allow any institutional authorities to tell us what Christians must believe.

You appeal to blind faith to make the statement about creationists not having credential. In order to participate at Institute for Creation Research one has to have either a masters degree in science or a doctorate degree in science.

No, it's arrogance plain and simple. You apply one standard to religion and another to science, which is an incontrovertible demonstration of your inherent bias. And arrogance. So I'll ask the question asgain, the one you failed to answer. This time I'll put it in your terms:

If two theories are contradictory, are both negated?

And here's another for you: Are all people with faith-based beliefs creationists?

It's amazing that you have to ask that question. It shows that you didn't understand my answer, and in fact have no clue about the faith-based beliefs that you so arrogantly dismiss.

Google "Pope Francis and evolution" and get back to me. Here, I'll give you a head start:

“The Big-Bang, that is placed today at the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine intervention but exacts it,” Francis said, speaking at a ceremony in the Vatican Gardens inaugurating a bronze bust in honor of his successor, Pope Benedict XVI. “The evolution in nature is not opposed to the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.”

Catholics often “risk imagining that God was a magician, with such a magic wand as to be able to do everything” when they think of the creation story, Francis said.

“God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the Creator who gives being to all entities,” he said.

And to answer your question, no I'm not Catholic. Just aware of more than my own narrow point of view.

Tongue in cheek.

People make the same stupid mistakes... they made eon’s ago.... so at least for human’s it’s BS.

SP, it's simple set theory.
For practical purposes, all creationist claims are faith-based, but not all people of faith are creationist.

As for how do you logically approach two contradictory hypothesis, each must face it's own burden of proof.
Proving A wrong does not make B true. It's possible both could be wrong.

As an example, if tomorrow the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection was proven wrong, that doesn't mean "god(s) did it", after all, there's other hypothesis like magic pixies, the computer simulation, or Gus's favorite, Aliens did it. Disproving any one of these doesn't prove any other, each requires it's own evidence.

Come on Rich, your reading comprehension is better than that. Read this line again:

Interestingly, none of his qualifications in any way relate to the natural sciences.

In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion. Carl Sagan

I fail to see how Philosophy or Theology can either be self correcting, as new data is unavailable to either discipline.

The last time new data was added to the field of religion was the Writings of Joseph Smith, whom over 99% of the world dismisses as a charlatan.

Biologists make new discoveries every day, leading to a more complete picture of the world around us.