Evolution is Impossible....

how do you know that your knowlage is not a lie fed to you.....
You must also learn that when scientists are paid to research something they are not going to tell you what you dont want to hear......

how do you know that your knowlage is not a lie fed to you.....

The possibility exists that everything I've been told is a lie. However, some of what I've been told is certainly verifiable. For instance, much of physics, especially classical physics, is self-verifiable. Heredity is also, for all practical purposes, verifiable. Genetic variation from parent to child is also verifiable. Many, many more observations are verifiable. These all coincide with the phenomenon of evolution. The same can not be said about most major religions.

Secondly, the reason I trust what is considered scientific fact is not because I have some unyielding trust in people, it's because every experiment they perform is verifiable. The theory of evolution can not be a conspiracy because it is simply far too massive of a conspiracy to not leak. There are many, many social checks and balances in the scientific community, which is why I trust scientific fact. Religion, being based on faith, does not have these checks and balances.

You must also learn that when scientists are paid to research something they are not going to tell you what you dont want to hear......

BWAHAHAHA! Believe that if you want. Do you know what a scientist would get for hard evidence against evolution? The Nobel Prize at the very least.

BWAHAHAHA! Believe that if you want. Do you know what a scientist would get for hard evidence against evolution? The Nobel Prize at the very least.

I think you've owned this kid enough MJ, time to let him go on with his life in the dark.

The theory of evolution can not be a conspiracy because it is simply far too massive of a conspiracy to not leak.

Really? So do you believe in the "magic bullet" theroy from the Kennedy Assasination? That theroy still goes on today....


[QUOTE=mjordan2nd] Do you know what a scientist would get for hard evidence against evolution?[QUOTE]
Do you really believe that a scientist would be willing to give up free money and grants to disprove something as massive and controversial as this? Hmm, Nobel prize or money that keeps rolling in, thats a tough one....

Really? So do you believe in the "magic bullet" theroy from the Kennedy Assasination? That theroy still goes on today.... Do you really believe that a scientist would be willing to give up free money and grants to disprove something as massive and controversial as this? Hmm, Nobel prize or money that keeps rolling in, thats a tough one....

Yeah, that's a real tough one.

What scientist in his right mind would possibly want to immortalize himself through one of the most ground-breaking discoveries in human history? What man would want to be synonymous with Einstein and Newton? What scientist would want to validate his own existence as a man of science by winning the Nobel Prize?

None that I know of!


Also the magic bullet has nothing to do with this.

An atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support

Really? So do you believe in the "magic bullet" theroy from the Kennedy Assasination? That theroy still goes on today....

I don't believe something because it's termed "theory," I accept it because it is based in well established scientific fact. "Magic bullet" most certainly is not.

Plus, a theory in the context of science is not really the same thing as a theory in common language. People seem to think that the term "theory" in science implies a certain degree of uncertainty. This is not the case. It is not termed "fact" because it is not a fact. It gives a plausible explanation of "how" or "why" a fact is, based on previous scientific research and new observations. There is the theory of evolution (debatable, although reasonably only on a very technical level). Then there is the natural phenomenon (fact) of common descent.

Do you really believe that a scientist would be willing to give up free money and grants to disprove something as massive and controversial as this? Hmm, Nobel prize or money that keeps rolling in, thats a tough one....

You don't seem to get it do you? Maybe a diagram will help:

Nobel Prize ----> Money (Nobel Prize brings money)

You don't go into science for the money. A Biology or a Physics PHD will get you shit for cash. People go into it because they have a passion for finding the truth. That said, quickest way to money in a research-related career is a Nobel prize.

If you're worried about getting money to research an alternative, if a plausible hypothesis is given a university would fund it. If not, there are many people who would love for a scientist to "disprove" evolution. Just get some of the wealthiest organizations in America (churches). I'm positive that they would love to see a renowned scientist disprove evolution, and would fund it if given a reasonable opportunity. Now, if you're looking for a hidden agenda, that's where you should turn.

RELIGION IS NOT ABOUT BEING CLOSED MINDED!!!! Why does every one say that?

Well, because of threads like this. Despite apodictic evidence, you deny common descent. That's fairly closed minded.

I mean, if you can believe in God, you shouldn't even need evidence. Why can't you simply "believe in" evolution, like you do God? Not saying that's a smart thing to do, but the logic doesn't make sense to me.

Let me ask you this: is there anything reasonable that would convince you that evolution is valid? Key word there is reasonable.

Generally when I pose this question people retort with, "Well what would it take to make you believe in God?" Before you dodge my question by throwing that at me, I'm going to just anticipate it and answer it for you.

First of all, this depends on how you define God. If you want to define God as whatever it was that initiaited the universe, then I could believe in God. General Relativity indicates that the universe is finite in both time and space. The fact that we exist inside it means if it wasn't always around, by our current understanding, it had to have been started at some point, so I can in this case reasonably acknowledge the existence of God. I'm not acknowledging any type of "outside" intelligence whatsoever, I'm simply saying whatever it was that initiated the universe can be called God, and that in that case it (term used loosely...because extra...universal anything is an opaque subject to science altogether) definitely exists.

However, people nowdays define God as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and in Christianity at least, omnibenevolent being. That very definition seems to contradict itself. If, by its very definition, it is contradictory, how am I supposed to acknowledge the validity of outlandish myths based solely on the idea that God exists. When so much of his book clearly contradicts evidence, why/how should I believe in it. If you want me to believe in something that contradicts evidence, show me a miracle or something. Part the red sea by supernatural means. I'm blasphemous. Smite me when I yell at you to strike me down with lightning. Do something. In all honesty, even the parting of the red sea would not prove God's existence. It would simply prove that the red sea inexplicably parted. Although I think I would find that a bit too coincidental to not at least doubt my atheism. You might be able to convert me if you part the red sea. Science doesn't promise miracles. It simply offers the facts, and plausible (usually highly likely) explanations for those facts. God, on the other hand, promises miracles. I can give you fact after fact and explanations which fit all the observed facts. Can you give me a miracle?

IIf you're worried about getting money to research an alternative, if a plausible hypothesis is given a university would fund it. If not, there are many people who would love for a scientist to "disprove" evolution. Just get some of the wealthiest organizations in America (churches). I'm positive that they would love to see a renowned scientist disprove evolution, and would fund it if given a reasonable opportunity. Now, if you're looking for a hidden agenda, that's where you should turn.

You really think that people place enough money into collection plates to give the church that kinda money? Most people palce only a few dollars here, and a couple of dollars there....

Well, because of threads like this. Despite apodictic evidence, you deny common descent. That's fairly closed minded.

Correction, I never denied common descent... I denied massive changes that are not even related to what the original descent was...

Let me ask you this: is there anything reasonable that would convince you that evolution is valid? Key word there is reasonable.

I do understand some resonabilities of evolution such as becoming acclimated to the weather around you or becoming a different color because your survival depends on it (like if a species of frog had two colors [say green and yellow] if they live in the woods natural selection would weed out the hurtful trait because the yellow frog would be easier to spot....

However, people nowdays define God as an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and in Christianity at least, omnibenevolent being. That very definition seems to contradict itself. If, by its very definition, it is contradictory, how am I supposed to acknowledge the validity of outlandish myths based solely on the idea that God exists. When so much of his book clearly contradicts evidence, why/how should I believe in it. If you want me to believe in something that contradicts evidence, show me a miracle or something. Part the red sea by supernatural means. I'm blasphemous. Smite me when I yell at you to strike me down with lightning. Do something. In all honesty, even the parting of the red sea would not prove God's existence. It would simply prove that the red sea inexplicably parted. Although I think I would find that a bit too coincidental to not at least doubt my atheism. You might be able to convert me if you part the red sea. Science doesn't promise miracles. It simply offers the facts, and plausible (usually highly likely) explanations for those facts. God, on the other hand, promises miracles. I can give you fact after fact and explanations which fit all the observed facts. Can you give me a miracle?

First of all, miracles were only given when they were needed.... (Ill use your example) the parting of the red sea was only done once because moses was told to save the slaves of egypt and bring them to the promised land.... God does not just give out miracles willy nilly.....

[QUOTE=Draco]You really think that people place enough money into collection plates to give the church that kinda money? Most people palce only a few dollars here, and a couple of dollars there....







Absolutely. If I had to pay $40,000 a week to keep my grass trimmed I doubt I could help pay for the advancement of the human race either.

Correction, I never denied common descent... I denied massive changes that are not even related to what the original descent was...

What? I'm not sure what it is you object to anymore. Most people who don't like evolution seem to not like the idea of common descent. If you're okay with that, what do you have against evolution? I mean, I don't know about you, but I would consider the rise of human beings from prokaryotes to be a fairly massive fucking change.

I do understand some resonabilities of evolution such as becoming acclimated to the weather around you or becoming a different color because your survival depends on it (like if a species of frog had two colors [say green and yellow] if they live in the woods natural selection would weed out the hurtful trait because the yellow frog would be easier to spot....

Exactly. Such changes are cumulative in a population. Given enough time, a new species rises. It's hard to distinguish exactly when a population is in a transitional state and when it is finally a species of its own, but it is what happens.

But you dodged my earlier question. What would it take for me to reasonably convince you of the validity of the theory.

First of all, miracles were only given when they were needed.... (Ill use your example) the parting of the red sea was only done once because moses was told to save the slaves of egypt and bring them to the promised land.... God does not just give out miracles willy nilly.....

Convenient how you can simply decree by fiat that the only thing that could really be seen as evidence for a Judeo-Christian God is impossible. I do agree with you, though. Miracles are impossible. Just as impossible as they were 2000+ years ago.

Goddamn you Black Jesus! If you keep making more sense, I'll have to cry to God to smite thee!

What? I'm not sure what it is you object to anymore. Most people who don't like evolution seem to not like the idea of common descent. If you're okay with that, what do you have against evolution? I mean, I don't know about you, but I would consider the rise of human beings from prokaryotes to be a fairly massive fucking change.

Let me put it to you this way.... when single celled organisms divide they create exact copys... so one splits into two, two into four, so on and so fourth... their DNA tells them how to split and when to split.... there could not possibly be a genetic trait in the organism that would go outside of the information stored in the cell.... otherwise scientists that study the organisms would have seen at least some sort of change by now.... I know you going to say that it takes billions of years, but at the rate that cells divide small mutations in the DNA would have shown something....

Let me also ask you this... The body is made up of systems. Visual system, respiratory system, cardiac system and so forth. Can you explain or can anyone explain how any of these systems could have been created, in peicemeal fashion over time to become a functioning system that is dependent upon the other systems to have a living organism. After all if you remove any of the parts of a system the system fails and the organism fails as well.

But lets just look at the visual system for a moment. You have the structure of the eye, the surface, the vitrious fluid that is so pure it is the only place in the body that it is found. You have the lens and then you have the cones of the eye that receive photons and turn them into electrons. You have the retina which recieves these electrons and then sends it along the nerve pathways to the cells of the brian that interprets these electrons into visual images that we see. Yet evolutionists would expect us to believe that the visual system was peiced together purely by accident over many many years through genetic "defects" that became beneficial. If you had 98% of the visual system put together the organism still can not see. It has to be 100% complete. So during all of this time while we were waiting for nature to accidently make the last peice of the puzzle we were running around blind for millenia.

To convince me of evolution, you would have to have at least one single shred of fossil evidence to support the theory. Today there is no single peice of fossil evidence to support the theory. That is why evolution anchors itself on hopeful monsters which use to be referred to as the missing link.

You really think that people place enough money into collection plates to give the church that kinda money? Most people palce only a few dollars here, and a couple of dollars there....

If you hadn't lost before, you have definitely lost now. Just stop fooling yourself. It looks bad.

You know the mormon church requires its members to give 10% of their income to it, right? The mormon church is fucking rich. Mormon families are huge, when all the children grow up they all have to pay 10% of everything to the church.

Not only that but you're agreeing with the exact fundamentals of evolution but denying its existance. I don't think you really understand what evolution is. It doesn't mean that if I go swim around in the water I'll grow gills and be able to breathe underwater.