The Evolution Myth

hi Robert!

i've read the posts on this thread and i do believe you are a serious and involved person when it comes to the subject of evolution/ creation or creation/evolution. but i can't help being amazed at how you seem to be sure of what you're saying. to be honest i always had problems with certainty. since you're into science, i'm sure you know it. in many domains it's called the principle of precaution (at least that's how we call it in french). what i mean is that since there is still room for speculation in both sides on this topic, how would we be sure if fish was created as such, or if my super-grandfather was an ape? those who say they behold the truth terrify me in general. and again i respect your erudition concerning the topic.

there were times when people KNEW what science was. later they were shown that they did not. thanks there are people with great stamina like Copernic, Galileo.

Hi there Sunwaiter,

You correctly ask how I can be sure of these things. Well, let me explain this.

Firstly (as I've already said) belief in creation IS a matter of faith, isn't it ? Nobody can scientifically prove or disprove creation. And I've said so from the very start.

But the 'theory of evolution' (so-called) is said to be science. It's taught in schools and colleges worldwide. In fact, its exponents say they have lots of hard evidence. Don't they ? Does it require any sort of faith to be an evolutionist ? Let's ask this simple question. Does it ? No, the evolutionist says he doesn't believe evolution is a matter of faith. He tells us he is simply being honest - with the facts of science. Doesn't he ?

So let's leave faith to one side. We either have it or we don't. Let's just see what the facts of science actually say. Whether they support the theory of evolution or if they do not. THAT's the issue.

You might believe there is no scientific alternative to evolution theory except creationism. But that is wrong, for the reasons I've just given above. In fact, the discoveries of science not only show 'evolution' is wrong but they also suggest something that CAN be proved. They suggest that the very same species we see in nature today are the SAME species which have existed throughout the entire history of life here on Earth. They are not different species. They are the very SAME species.

This view is, of course, able to be checked. The same as the views of evolutionists. Isn't it ?

So, I repeat, whether we have faith or not, let's see if species are really immutable, permanent, in nature or if they have 'evolved' from other species.

You say you 'always have problems with certainty'. Why ? Why do you have problems with certainty. Surely there are much greater problems with uncertainty. No ?

I am certain that the heart pumps blood around the body. I am so certain of it that I guarantee the heart will pump blood around the body for as long as man studies the body. Don't you agree ? Are YOU certain of that fact. I am certain that water is wet. I am certain that we cannot live without water. I am certain that science presupposes order in the universe, and not chaos. In fact, science is founded on certainty - the certainty that order exists and that it can be studied. I am certain that geology as a science exists because I see evidence for order. I am certain that science exists because it is the discovery of and the study of order in the finite realm. I am certain of it. And so are all scientists.

Why do you say then that you 'always have problems with certainty' ? There are countless examples of things which are clear, unambiguous and certain. Aren't there ?

It's simply that 'evolutionists' don't know what they are talking about. They invent fantastic, absurd, scenarios and they claim to have lots of 'evidence'. No sooner do we examine this evidence, scientifically, than it collapses in a heap and is proved to be false. So why do we teach this nonsense ?

Nature teaches us that 'species' exist. Doesn't it ? But when we ask an evolutionist for a definition of species he will look at his watch and then excuse himself. He simply doesn't know what he is talking about. But he tells you that 'species have evolved'. From 'other species'. In this game it's obvious that they can use anything to 'prove' their circular argument.

But the laws of nature say evolution has NOT happened. It says (and you can see it in the LAWS of heredity, for example) that a 'species' is really a living creature which belongs to a set, a group, of other living creatures known today as a 'genus'. Doesn't it ? A species is a very specific and not a vague thing. And a single species can exist in countless different forms. The same species. Isn't that true. Isn't it true that, for example, a particular species of flower can exist in many varieties ? Yet all these varieties are of one and the very same species. We should not confuse varieties with different species, should we ? But the evolutionist does so all the time.

You say 'those who say the behold the truth terrify me in general'.

Then, in that case, those who say the earth revolves around the sun terrify you also. Those who say that oxgen is an element, as is copper, and as is gold, terrify you also. For they are sure of it.

If evolution theory is taught in our schools shouldn't we have the right to know what is true and what is not true ? Shouldn't it be exposed as a fraud if, in fact, there are many powerful arguments against it ?

Regards
 

sunwaiter

New member
laws and theories are somewhat unstable, just as one's belief (refering to mister Behe) and sometimes must be broken or revised. that's why i always prefer doubt to certainty. some say the lord works in mysterious ways. i guess it means we can't explain everything, no matter what we do. so why would science as it is today bring all the elements to prove, for example, that animals on earth are constantly evolving? we call it research. there can't be a final point to this kind of discussion, even if some people are wrong in their judgment at some time, wether they support the ID or the ET theory (and i stress the word THEORY). by the way, thanks for the acronymous formulas. helps a lot ;)

just as i was interested in the famous global warming theory (which is to our fellow Corno Dolce a swindle, or hooey - he also seems to know what is true and what is false), i'm getting interested in the evolution versus creation discussion, as long as there is a discussion.
 

sunwaiter

New member
oops, i was writing my last post as you were sending yours. so you know the order in which they came is not correct.
 
Sunwaiter,

Shall I break the news to you gently ? Carrots, cabbages, dolphins, humming-birds, and oak trees do NOT have a common ancestor.

But if the discoveries of paleontology, biology, genetics, zoology, biology and other sciences don't impress you in this matter try the bible, which correctly teaches that 'every seed brings forth of its own kind'. There ! That IS precisely what we know for CERTAIN about living things. The evolution myth is complete nonsense and should not be taught in our schools. It's hocus pocus and is contrary to the actual discoveries of science.

Which is why evolutionists cannot/will not defend their dogmas fairly and honestly against those who know better.

'Every seed brings forth of its own kind'.

Thus, every species is contained, fixed, placed permanently, occupies uniquely, a particular place within its own 'kind'. The 'kind' being the genus. Whether its form changes or not. And that is exactly what we find in reality. Oranges bring forth oranges. Apples, apples. Whales whales. It cannot be more simple, can it ? The species is a permanent and integral part of nature. It is not a plastic entity which is becoming 'another species'. It is and will always be a unique species. In cases where species interact with each other it is because they are members of the same genus. And the way they can interact in breeding is determined by their own unique position within the genus of which they are both members.


Regards

Robert
 
Last edited:

Andrew Roussak

New member
laws and theories are somewhat unstable, just as one's belief (refering to mister Behe) and sometimes must be broken or revised. that's why i always prefer doubt to certainty. some say the lord works in mysterious ways. i guess it means we can't explain everything, no matter what we do. so why would science as it is today bring all the elements to prove, for example, that animals on earth are constantly evolving? we call it research. there can't be a final point to this kind of discussion, even if some people are wrong in their judgment at some time, wether they support the ID or the ET theory (and i stress the word THEORY). by the way, thanks for the acronymous formulas. helps a lot ;)

just as i was interested in the famous global warming theory (which is to our fellow Corno Dolce a swindle, or hooey - he also seems to know what is true and what is false), i'm getting interested in the evolution versus creation discussion, as long as there is a discussion.

Well, of course, but you still can't deny the fact that ET is being taught in schools and popularised by mass-media as the ONLY one "true" vision of how it all had happened. ET had 150 years to prove it was right and failed to bring out at least ONE evidence.
ID is, as I mentioned, a pretty new thing. Think of Mendel - he was laughed out by the evolutionists at the first line, because he was an augustinian monk etc. It took about 40 years that genetics was accepted as science - the modern biology , medicine would be impossible without genetics.
And then, there are also many scientists who don't support or belong to creation science, but nevertheless saying ET is wrong. If you take out an ambitious figure of Dawkins - how many supporters of ET will still be there?
 

sunwaiter

New member
Robert:

i never talked about vegetables or trees. i was talking about what we call the animals.

you are right when you suggest that we can't be satisfied with vague knowledge, but it seems anyway that we don't share that much with vegetables. on the contrary, we share lots of things with apes, pigs, whales, etc, as you already know.

you just can't impose your truth to me, or to nobody. i don't feel that you want to discuss any point. it's a pity. i don't support any dogma. if i did, would i be trying to share my point of view? please don't be condescendant.
 

Corno Dolce

Admiral Honkenwheezenpooferspieler
Aloha sunwaiter,

Just as our brilliant colleague Robert Newman so cogently elocutes about examining the evidence, scientifically, about evolution, so do I, from a Science point of view, examine the phony evidence of *global warming* and find that it all collapses into a smoldering heap of slag that is as useless as salt that has lost its savor. True Science is not a spectator sport. Like Math, you must actively participate. You must learn how to do the scientific process. Doing science is not the same as simple verbal argument *pro et contra* on a public forum.

The now infamous phrase uttered by the *global warming phony* Algore - that of Consensus Science, is just empty rhetoric designed to fool the foolish. Consensus is not Science - Science is not consensus!

Best regards,

CD :tiphat::tiphat::tiphat:

Ps: Sunwaiter, our colleague Andrew Roussak is not being condescending towards you - He is trying to help you.
 
i never talked about vegetables or trees. i was talking about what we call the animals.

you are right when you suggest that we can't be satisfied with vague knowledge, but it seems anyway that we don't share that much with vegetables. on the contrary, we share lots of things with apes, pigs, whales, etc, as you already know.

you just can't impose your truth to me, or to nobody. i don't feel that you want to discuss any point. it's a pity. i don't support any dogma. if i did, would i be trying to share my point of view? please don't be condescendant.

No, you never talked about vegetables or trees. But let's talk about them. Let's talk about living things generally. Are you ready ? The evolutionist says vegetables, trees, whales and humming birds are all descended from a common ancestor. But there is not a shred of evidence to support this dogma, is there ?

Which makes me wonder why evolution is taught in our schools. You see my point ? Maybe people choose to be ignorant ?
 

sunwaiter

New member
Corno:

once again, you're being alittle too confident to inspire my trust. too bad.

i don't care about al gore, i've never seen his film.
 
Well, of course, but you still can't deny the fact that ET is being taught in schools and popularised by mass-media as the ONLY one "true" vision of how it all had happened. ET had 150 years to prove it was right and failed to bring out at least ONE evidence.
ID is, as I mentioned, a pretty new thing. Think of Mendel - he was laughed out by the evolutionists at the first line, because he was an augustinian monk etc. It took about 40 years that genetics was accepted as science - the modern biology , medicine would be impossible without genetics.
And then, there are also many scientists who don't support or belong to creation science, but nevertheless saying ET is wrong. If you take out an ambitious figure of Dawkins - how many supporters of ET will still be there?

Yes Andrew,

Excellent !

In fact, Grigor Mendel (the great pioneer of the modern science of genetics) spent his little savings on postage stamps. Why ?

He bought them (together with paper) to send his findings of heredity (obtained by detailed studies) to evolutionists such as Charles Darwin.

And what did Darwin do when he received Mendel's brilliant discoveries of heredity ? He did nothing. Nothing at all. He didn't even reply.

Viva Mendel !

Finally, in the year 1900 three different researchers all concluded within months of each other that Grigor Mendel had discovered laws. The laws of inheritance. Valid for all living things. The result was the science of genetics. The laws of heredity. A brilliant discovery by a great researcher - resisted, in fact, by teachers of evolution theory. But overwhelmingly proved true after a century and more of proofs.

Regards

Robert
 

sunwaiter

New member
But Corno i thank you for remembering everybody that science is not consensus, cause consensus often mean totalitarism. i agree. and what about refusing discussion?

"scientific" (adressed to all parts) evidence is made of so many things. i notices that everybody chooses the "evidence" that suits their theory best and then decide that they can't change their minds again, or at least discuss. if you are definitely SURE that there can't be any discussion, then i will go back to school on my own and leave you with your supreme knowledge.
 
Sunwaiter,

What is called 'science' these days is often legitimised speculation. Dressed up as fact. Science is the agreement that order exists in the universe and may be studied. Those who subscribe to this view have made the discoveries. The rest is 'pseudo-science', fantasy and downright fraud.
 

Corno Dolce

Admiral Honkenwheezenpooferspieler
Aloha sunwaiter,

A true scientist does not have supreme knowlege. I do not have supreme knowlege but by using the tools of Science I can discover and inform myself that which is phony like evolution theory and global warming hooey. I am always willing to discuss things with you and entertain that which you say - I never close my mind to insightful discussion. You are in error if that is what you perceive I do.

Best regards,

CD :tiphat::tiphat::tiphat:
 
Aloha sunwaiter,

Just as our brilliant colleague Robert Newman so cogently elocutes about examining the evidence, scientifically, about evolution, so do I, from a Science point of view, examine the phony evidence of *global warming* and find that it all collapses into a smoldering heap of slag that is as useless as salt that has lost its savor. True Science is not a spectator sport. Like Math, you must actively participate. You must learn how to do the scientific process. Doing science is not the same as simple verbal argument *pro et contra* on a public forum.

The now infamous phrase uttered by the *global warming phony* Algore - that of Consensus Science, is just empty rhetoric designed to fool the foolish. Consensus is not Science - Science is not consensus!

Best regards,

CD :tiphat::tiphat::tiphat:

Ps: Sunwaiter, our colleague Andrew Roussak is not being condescending towards you - He is trying to help you.

Yes C.D.,

The seasons are a permanent fixture of nature. Man can of course influence them in many ways (by chopping down forests, polluting the air and the seas etc) but the seasons themselves will always inevitably restore themselves. So that they will not cease for as long as living things are on the Earth.

Nature is wiser than all politicians !! :)

Regards
 

sunwaiter

New member
Corno:

concerning the global warming thing, i took some time lately to gather all sorts of documents on the thread reserved for this topic. i don't have much time now but i hope i will later. i hope you take everything people can bring in consideration. i'm CERTAIN i do not have the amount of "information" you have. but once more, we often choose to read or listen to what we decided was the right thing to read or listen. that's why i picked info on various internet pages (of various reliability, of course), to try to be as inpartial as possible, and learn things. i can't allow myself to say "i'm right, you're wrong", since it's not the point. and we do share this way of seeing things, don't we?

robert:

what allows you to affirm that man cannot influence cycles of nature in a definitive way?
 

Corno Dolce

Admiral Honkenwheezenpooferspieler
Aloha Mr. Newman,

Yep, yep, and yep - Our Triune God will cause our natural environment to restore itself - Maybe one of the restorative processes are Typhoons.

Best regards,

CD :):):)
 

sunwaiter

New member
Robert: i mentioned condescendance because of one of you posts, it was not adressed to Andrew. but it's alright.
 

sunwaiter

New member
Sunwaiter,

What is called 'science' these days is often legitimised speculation. Dressed up as fact. Science is the agreement that order exists in the universe and may be studied. Those who subscribe to this view have made the discoveries. The rest is 'pseudo-science', fantasy and downright fraud.

this in itself is a speculation. we have the right to speculate, but we always have to sort things out. contradictions and dogmas make the game very difficult.

lately i read a vulgarisation book about theory of chaos. do you think this kind of book can be kept in the "science" section?
 

Corno Dolce

Admiral Honkenwheezenpooferspieler
Aloha sunwaiter,

I admire your striving to become informed and your willingness to share what you have found. But, as I mentioned in a previous posting, one must be able to use the tools of the scientific process. Have you studied meteorology, chemistry, astrophysics, biology, computer science, engineering or mathematics as a student enrolled at a University? You might ask what does that have to do with the matter being discussed...It has much to do with the matter being discussed since all the prognostications and rhetoric are pieced together from disparate findings cross-disciplinarily.

Best regards,

CD :):):)
 
Top