The ever changing forked tongue theory of evolution

[River Jordan]

If you haven't read them, how do you know they are about atheism?

The titles. It's not really a mystery what a book titled "The death of atheism" is about.

I too have found that truth according to atheist evolutionaries is what they say is the truth, whether it is or not.

You've been shown exactly how creationist Jonathan Wells lied in his book that you cited. Does that not matter to you? Or have you managed to somehow convince yourself that it can't be a lie, since he's on your team?

In fact, evolution shoots itself in the foot. if the purpose of evolution is nothing more than the survival of the fittest which it is, then things like compassion, humility, and tolerance are totally meaningless and self defeating. Such an ideology shows that might always makes right and victory belongs to the strong as Stalin exemplified so well.

You're just showing your ignorance of the subject. Survival doesn't always entail brute force. A population that can run fast or that has camouflage abilities will oftentimes survive better than those without it. Or in species that have social groups, the groups that cooperate and care for each other will survive better than those that don't.

However, Darwin didn't believe what he said as a country gentleman, survival of the fittest would never have played a part of his character and nature. All he did was to ASSUME, that everything came from nothing (no evidence) and this ASSUMPTION led a to a LEAP OF FAITH that led him to devise an outlandish theory to prove it. Science didn't get a look in at any time in his deliberations. it was all based on conjecture.

Darwin pursued private research for the rest of his life. He focused on ants, earthworms, vegetable mould and other organisms in the hope that he would be able to provide evidence of transmutation. He never found it so that tells us a lot about Darwin and his so called scientific discoveries.

It's one thing to see someone be ignorant of a subject....we're all ignorant of far more subjects than we're experts in. But it's something else entirely to see someone be so ignorant of a subject, yet think themselves an expert in it. It's a classic example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

 

[KingJ]

"Faith is: the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links unseen." M.M.

In the absence of a belief in God evolution is the best hypothesis. Clearly not a good one. This is why TE's really have a lot of explaining to do!

An atheist can be forgiven for believing evolution.

 

[Guestman]

Because of the churches dogmatic attitude towards evolution rather than using persuasion, it causes many who accept evolution to become more firmly entrenched in their stance. Though evolution has no real "leg to stand on", having the approach of having "I'm right and your wrong" scenario on the part of those who support creation, does not assist those favoring evolution to review their belief.


Rather, should not those who favor creation provide sound evidence and reasoning points in order for an evolutionist to rethink his or her stand. Lets look at some examples that can provide evidence that the universe and its life did not come about at random.


One example is that of a protein, at times called the "building blocks of life". What are the odds of a single protein of about about 100 amino acids happening by chance ? It has been calculated as one chance in a million billion.(Brochure "The Origin of Life - Five Questions Worth Asking", pg 6 at JW dot org) For a protein to function precisely, its amino acids must be in an exacting order and then folded by the subtle interaction with water into a three dimensional shape or the protein is a failure. How could this be illustrated of amino acids coming together at random to form a protein that functions properly ?


It could be having a big, thoroughly mixed pile of an equal number of red and white beans. Now, if you plunged a scoop into this pile, what would you get ? About an equal number of red and white beans. To get the beans that represent the needed amino acids to build a protein, you would have to scoop up only the red ones - no white ones at all. Why ?


Because all amino acids used by the body are all "left-handed" in design, no "right-handed" ones allowed, this posing a problem for those who accept evolution. And these "left-handed" amino acids must be in a specific order, then interact with water to be twisted into a precise three dimensional shape to function correctly.(Life - How Did It Get Here, By evolution or by creation ?", chp 4, p 43, par 17 at JW dot org) How could this be accomplished randomly ?


Now, when the number of proteins is increased to about 2,000 inside a living cell that serve as enzymes, what are now the odds ? 10 followed by 40,000 zeroes. Or as British astronomer Fred Hoyle (1915-2001) once stated, that this is "the same as the chance of throwing an uninterrupted sequence of 50,000 sixes with unbiased dice!” (The Intelligent Universe, F. Hoyle, 1983, pages 11-12, 17, 23)


And concerning the "blueprint of life, DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), it is considered a "feat of engineering" to pack it inside the nucleus of a cell. Why ? Because it is like packing 24 miles of very fine thread into a tennis ball.(Brochure "The Origin of Life - Five Questions Worth Asking", pg 15) Or the capacity of DNA to hold information, for one gram of DNA carries as much information as a trillion CDs could.

In fact, DNA is so capable of holding information, that a single teaspoonful of it could carry the instructions for building 350 times the number of humans alive today ! The DNA required for the almost 8 billion people living on earth now would barely make film on the surface of that teaspoon.(Brochure "The Origin of Life - Five Questions Worth Asking", pg 16 and 18)


Reasoning rather than arguing with people is how the apostle Paul helped others, for Acts 17 says that "he reasoned with them (Jews) from the Scriptures, explaining and proving by references" what the Bible really taught about Jesus.(Acts 17:2, 3) Of course, unless a person has a body of accurate and "formatted"(brought forth in a reasonable way, not argumentative) information to show that the universe is not a product of evolution, there will no real success in helping others to recognize where life came from.(see Ps 36:9)

 

[River Jordan]

Because of the churches dogmatic attitude towards evolution rather than using persuasion, it causes many who accept evolution to become more firmly entrenched in their stance.

The reason people like me are "entrenched" is because we've studied the science and found it to be extremely solid. And for me, I've also studied quite a bit of creationist material and seen consistent patterns of dishonesty, misrepresentation, and absurdity.

Though evolution has no real "leg to stand on"

Given the material you've posted below, it looks like this viewpoint is based on a number of misconceptions about the science. The question is, did you come by these misconceptions on your own, or are you repeating things you've been told by creationist organizations?

One example is that of a protein, at times called the "building blocks of life". What are the odds of a single protein of about about 100 amino acids happening by chance ?

This is a common falsehood promoted by dishonest creationist organizations. Proteins don't form "by chance" (randomly). They are the products of chemistry, which is entirely non-random. So the question is, do your sources not know that (they're ignorant) or do they know it, but propagate this falsehood anyways (they're lying)?

How could this be illustrated of amino acids coming together at random to form a protein that functions properly ?

Because those things don't happen randomly/by chance. Your source is either ignorant or is lying to you.

Reasoning rather than arguing with people is how the apostle Paul helped others, for Acts 17 says that "he reasoned with them (Jews) from the Scriptures, explaining and proving by references" what the Bible really taught about Jesus.(Acts 17:2, 3) Of course, unless a person has a body of accurate and "formatted"(brought forth in a reasonable way, not argumentative) information to show that the universe is not a product of evolution, there will no real success in helping others to recognize where life came from.(see Ps 36:9)

I know you're probably not open to what I've posted (most creationists refuse to admit their sources are dishonest), but it's right there for all to see. Your entire post is based on the argument "it couldn't have happened by chance", even though chemistry doesn't occur by random chance. Do you have the courage to admit this fundamental error/dishonesty on their part, or are you so wedded to them that you will defend them no matter what they say?

 

[marksman]

It seems that evolutionaries favourite accusation is that your sources are ignorant or lying. Judging by what I have read (about 10 books on the subject) it is the atheist evolutionary that is doing all the lying. I went through google and made a random selection of comments. Apart from Huxley using Darwin for his own non scientific ends, I had great difficulty finding any atheist who claimed that science shows the origin of life. In other words, the question of how proteins evolve in the first place has been swept under the rug.

Whether there were RNA precursors or not, there is a substantial difficulty in explaining how the first proteins could have evolved.
A few years ago an experiment showed that randomly constructed short proteins have a one in 10^12 shot (a million million) of having function

If you just wait long enough, acid-base reactions will get DNA and protein working together, and life will appear—right? Wrong! Just the opposite.

Professor Michael Blaber and his team produced data supporting the idea (NOTE, IDEA, NOT FACT) that 10 amino acids believed to exist (NOTE: BELIEVED TO EXIST) on Earth around 4 billion years ago were capable of forming foldable proteins in a high-salt (halophile) environment. Such proteins would have been capable of providing metabolic activity for the first living organisms to emerge on the planet between 3.5 and 3.9 billion years ago. WHERE DID THE PROTEINS COME FROM?

Scientific debates don't get much hotter than the one surrounding the origin of organic molecules at the dawn of life on Earth. New findings, based on a reanalysis of a 50-year-old experiment, suggests that ancient volcanic activity was the source of the very first amino acids.

Maybe we have resurrected Martian proteins. Maybe the last universal common ancestor formed on Mars and transferred to Earth
Professor Jose Sanchez-Ruiz, Granada University

Four decades ago, several scientists suggested that the impossibility of any evolutionary process sampling anything but a miniscule fraction of the possible protein sequences posed a problem for the evolution of new proteins. This potential problem-the sampling problem-was largely ignored, in part because those who raised it had to rely on guesswork to fill some key gaps in their understanding of proteins. (NOTE: GUESSWORK).

Has anyone noticed that the origin of life according to atheist revolutionaries is volcanic activity...or may be martian....or maybe....

 

[BlackManINC]

It seems that evolutionaries favourite accusation is that your sources are ignorant or lying. Judging by what I have read (about 10 books on the subject) it is the atheist evolutionary that is doing all the lying. I went through google and made a random selection of comments. Apart from Huxley using Darwin for his own non scientific ends, I had great difficulty finding any atheist who claimed that science shows the origin of life. In other words, the question of how proteins evolve in the first place has been swept under the rug.

Whether there were RNA precursors or not, there is a substantial difficulty in explaining how the first proteins could have evolved.
A few years ago an experiment showed that randomly constructed short proteins have a one in 10^12 shot (a million million) of having function

If you just wait long enough, acid-base reactions will get DNA and protein working together, and life will appear—right? Wrong! Just the opposite.

Professor Michael Blaber and his team produced data supporting the idea (NOTE, IDEA, NOT FACT) that 10 amino acids believed to exist (NOTE: BELIEVED TO EXIST) on Earth around 4 billion years ago were capable of forming foldable proteins in a high-salt (halophile) environment. Such proteins would have been capable of providing metabolic activity for the first living organisms to emerge on the planet between 3.5 and 3.9 billion years ago. WHERE DID THE PROTEINS COME FROM?

Scientific debates don't get much hotter than the one surrounding the origin of organic molecules at the dawn of life on Earth. New findings, based on a reanalysis of a 50-year-old experiment, suggests that ancient volcanic activity was the source of the very first amino acids.

Maybe we have resurrected Martian proteins. Maybe the last universal common ancestor formed on Mars and transferred to Earth
Professor Jose Sanchez-Ruiz, Granada University

Four decades ago, several scientists suggested that the impossibility of any evolutionary process sampling anything but a miniscule fraction of the possible protein sequences posed a problem for the evolution of new proteins. This potential problem-the sampling problem-was largely ignored, in part because those who raised it had to rely on guesswork to fill some key gaps in their understanding of proteins. (NOTE: GUESSWORK).

Has anyone noticed that the origin of life according to atheist revolutionaries is volcanic activity...or may be martian....or maybe....

When it comes down to it, the origin of life, according to the heathen evolutionists will ultimately be a naturalistic source, as per their beliefs. This is the one thing that atheists have in common with pagan doctrine, both are materialistic, only one is secular while the other pantheistic. Yet again, you proved the point I made that all you get from the evolutionists are gap theories, nothing ever concrete, just a bunch circumstantial evidence that can hardly be even called circumstantial with not a shred of direct evidence to back any of their assertions up.

 

[JimParker]

It's one thing to see someone be ignorant of a subject....we're all ignorant of far more subjects than we're experts in. But it's something else entirely to see someone be so ignorant of a subject, yet think themselves an expert in it. It's a classic example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

<< so ignorant of a subject, yet think themselves an expert in it.>>

Ah, yes. The "crackpot." (Neither Dunning nor Kruger used the term, assumedly because of its lack of a peer-accepted, scholarly definition.)

A charismatic crackpot theologian can be very successful in founding and expanding a cult and reaping great financial rewards.

A crackpot theologian without the charisma will have to be satisfied with haunting forums where his/her babbling will actually engage people in arguments in which the crackpot mistakenly believes his/her arguments to be unassailable and convincing. (right :lol

jim

 

[River Jordan]

It seems that evolutionaries favourite accusation is that your sources are ignorant or lying.

Except that you've been specifically shown how your sources are either ignorant or lying. Remember how J. Wells said peppered moths don't rest on tree trunks, when the data clearly shows they do? Is he just ignorant of that data, or is he lying? You tell me.

Has anyone noticed that the origin of life according to atheist revolutionaries is volcanic activity...or may be martian....or maybe....

I started a thread on this subject (Are you sure you want to bet against this) and some of the most recent research. You should go read it.

 

[marksman]

When it comes down to it, the origin of life, according to the heathen evolutionists will ultimately be a naturalistic source, as per their beliefs. This is the one thing that atheists have in common with pagan doctrine, both are materialistic, only one is secular while the other pantheistic. Yet again, you proved the point I made that all you get from the evolutionists are gap theories, nothing ever concrete, just a bunch circumstantial evidence that can hardly be even called circumstantial with not a shred of direct evidence to back any of their assertions up.

Well put BlackMan INC. To emphasize the point, a Dr. Penrose said that his calculations placed the odds of life emerging as Darwin describes it at more than a trillion trillion trillion times less likely than zero. Roger Penrose. The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds and the Laws of Physics. (New York, The Oxford University Press 1989) p445

J. M. Black PhD. said "To hold such a view [evolution] is an act of faith far beyond anything expected of Christians or Jews. It demands a complete suspension of belief better suited to the readers of fairy tales." The Death of Evolution. (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan 2010) p33.

And a Dr. W. R. Thompson said that he is not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial.............He fell back on speculative arguments.....but the facts and interpretations on which Darwin relied have ceased to convince. W.R. Thompson, introduction to Origin of Species (London: Everyman, 1958)

I could add a few hundred more but that will suffice for the time being.

 

[BlackManINC]

Well put BlackMan INC. To emphasize the point, a Dr. Penrose said that his calculations placed the odds of life emerging as Darwin describes it at more than a trillion trillion trillion times less likely than zero. Roger Penrose. The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds and the Laws of Physics. (New York, The Oxford University Press 1989) p445

J. M. Black PhD. said "To hold such a view [evolution] is an act of faith far beyond anything expected of Christians or Jews. It demands a complete suspension of belief better suited to the readers of fairy tales." The Death of Evolution. (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan 2010) p33.

And a Dr. W. R. Thompson said that he is not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial.............He fell back on speculative arguments.....but the facts and interpretations on which Darwin relied have ceased to convince. W.R. Thompson, introduction to Origin of Species (London: Everyman, 1958)

I could add a few hundred more but that will suffice for the time being.

No need to, it won't make a difference to the "Christian" evolutionists plaguing this website. The message you and I have sent is loud and clear, evolution is of the devil, and I'm 100% certain that it will be key towards end times deceptions occurring that will cause the falling away, or a massive amount of Christians losing their faith in Gods word. This won't happen when the anti-Christ arrives, Paul says this will occur before he even comes into the picture. The Bible says that the anti-Christ will be a great blasphemer of the nature and character of God, and even in Paul's day, his spirit was already working his magic in this world, speaking marvelous claims against the "God of gods", and its being done today primarily under the guise of "science".

 

[pom2014]

I trust what real science reveals about Gods word, not pagan rubbish falsely called science.

You do realise that pagan means country folk the people that live outside the city walls?

Perhaps you should switch to heretical?

 

[BlackManINC]

You do realise that pagan means country folk the people that live outside the city walls?

Perhaps you should switch to heretical?

That's fine, heathen would probably be an even better term describing all who adhere to materialistic doctrine. The Bible tells us that God created all living creatures as we see them today with some variations overtime, Satan's HisStory however, tells us that nature creates itself, is the alpha and omega, and henceforth even knows all there is to know through its own creative essence ,like the "universal consciousness" described in "new" age philosophy.

 

[marksman]

Except that you've been specifically shown how your sources are either ignorant or lying. Remember how J. Wells said peppered moths don't rest on tree trunks, when the data clearly shows they do? Is he just ignorant of that data, or is he lying? You tell me.


I started a thread on this subject (Are you sure you want to bet against this) and some of the most recent research. You should go read it.

But the problem with such a claim is that it only your opinion and as evolutionists point out no one evolutionist speaks for another so your view is ....your view, so we can take it with a pinch of salt and go and laugh at the thousands of other views purported to be the truth by other evolutionists like those who insist it all came from an amoeba in a pond and then there is the guy who said we came from a sandworm found on a beach and then there are those who claim the world is 2 billion years old or the dear departed Christopher Hitchens who claimed it was 13.5 billion years old. I mean, if evolutionists can't agree on what is truth how do you expect anyone else who is not an evolutionist be convinced about the evolutionist fairy tale.

 

[pom2014]

That's fine, heathen would probably be an even better term describing all who adhere to materialistic doctrine. The Bible tells us that God created all living creatures as we see them today with some variations overtime, Satan's HisStory however, tells us that nature creates itself, is the alpha and omega, and henceforth even knows all there is to know through its own creative essence ,like the "universal consciousness" described in "new" age philosophy.

No heathen isn't better. That is someone who lives on a hill or heath. A lot of Christians live on hills.

I think heretic is the best term and linguistically correct.

I also abhor gay being attributed to homosexual and I would love to see "my bad" go away along with "I could care less" and combination words like "bromance", "spanglish" and "gaydar" to also go away.

Perhaps its solely because I'm English and its my language being abused by simpletons whom only wish to be known in social circles.

 

[platypusninja314]

Also, you have to remember that it is impossible to "prove" that God is real through science, as C.S. Lewis states. However, science can give us a pretty accurate point in one direction, and I believe that it actually supports creationism (especially if you look at irreducible complexity, the universe expanding, etc).
His Bond Servant,
Ryker Lutjens

 

[River Jordan]

But the problem with such a claim is that it only your opinion and as evolutionists point out no one evolutionist speaks for another so your view is ....your view

Um....no. It's not an "opinion" that peppered moths rest on tree trunks. They do; it's a directly observed fact. Wells isn't telling the truth.

so we can take it with a pinch of salt and go and laugh at the thousands of other views purported to be the truth by other evolutionists like those who insist it all came from an amoeba in a pond and then there is the guy who said we came from a sandworm found on a beach and then there are those who claim the world is 2 billion years old or the dear departed Christopher Hitchens who claimed it was 13.5 billion years old. I mean, if evolutionists can't agree on what is truth how do you expect anyone else who is not an evolutionist be convinced about the evolutionist fairy tale.

The problem here is, you're getting your information from dishonest creationist sources. That's like getting your info about the Bible from Richard Dawkins.

Also, you have to remember that it is impossible to "prove" that God is real through science, as C.S. Lewis states. However, science can give us a pretty accurate point in one direction, and I believe that it actually supports creationism (especially if you look at irreducible complexity, the universe expanding, etc).
His Bond Servant,
Ryker Lutjens

Just an FYI, "irreducible complexity" is a pretty terrible creationist argument that has no scientific weight at all. But I do agree with you that the universe is good evidence of God's creation!

 

[BlackManINC]

But the problem with such a claim is that it only your opinion and as evolutionists point out no one evolutionist speaks for another so your view is ....your view, so we can take it with a pinch of salt and go and laugh at the thousands of other views purported to be the truth by other evolutionists like those who insist it all came from an amoeba in a pond and then there is the guy who said we came from a sandworm found on a beach and then there are those who claim the world is 2 billion years old or the dear departed Christopher Hitchens who claimed it was 13.5 billion years old. I mean, if evolutionists can't agree on what is truth how do you expect anyone else who is not an evolutionist be convinced about the evolutionist fairy tale.

Here is the deal, the first thing we have to ask ourselves is this simple question. What makes Christianity more valid than any other belief? Well, its simple, Christianity is the only religion that teaches salvation by grace through faith, whereas all other religions teaches salvation by works, because all of them are materialistic religions at their core. This goes for the doctrine of evolution as well, because evolution, like all the false religions from which it originated, is a works based belief system. It teaches that God didn't do the work in six days, but that nature did the work in billions of years. Evolution henceforth, teaches that Jesus didn't finish the work of atonement on the cross, and rose from the dead in incorruption, so that we may gain eternal life. Evolution instead teaches that to obtain incorruption, to conquer death and sickness, we have to obtain it by our works, which is the creed of trans-humanism, an ideology that spawned out of the theory of evolution. This will be the foundation of the blasphemes the Antichrist will spew out of his mouth. He will come on the scene preaching another gospel contrary to that in the Bible. A works based, materialistic gospel, that will take us full circle back to the same lie Satan told Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden that led to the fall in the first place, and all who follow this other Gospel will end up in the lake of fire where they belong.

 

[River Jordan]

Weird....in all the published papers I've read on evolutionary biology, I never came across one that said anything about Jesus, the resurrection, eternal life, or any of the stuff in the post above. Maybe I've been reading the wrong journals?

 

[BlackManINC]

Weird....in all the published papers I've read on evolutionary biology, I never came across one that said anything about Jesus, the resurrection, eternal life, or any of the stuff in the post above. Maybe I've been reading the wrong journals?

Your journals ain't got to say a thing about Jesus and his message anymore than any of the pagan religions. If it teaches an Antichrist, anti Biblical doctrine, then it belongs in the lake of fire along with any who adhere to it. I don't give a if you claim to be a "Christian", you're just as much as my enemy as Satan himself.

 

[Angelina]

Please take care in your approach when discussing subjects that are controversial. Sticking to the specific issue rather personal insults will ensure that members are not in breach forum rules.

Thank you