Let's put it this way, darwinism is just a theory and we're still trying to *prove* it.
Theories in science are never proven. Theories are the endpoints of scientific inquiry. A scientific explanation does not attain the status of "theory" until it has been accepted with a high degree of confidence amongst a significant number of experts who study the relevant field.
I think the problem may be that the evolution scientist have yet to back up all their statements with a single study done in the lab which can show even two consecutive mutations occuring in any life form and this mutation: a) proving beneficial b) surviving to the next generation
Personally, I believe that the problem is that creationists refuse to do any research, and then they make demonstratably false claims by assuming that their lack of research is equivalent to a lack of actual evidence.
Nebraska man A lie and a fake for 40 years. By then everyone in the world thought they were from apes. How did it take 40 years for the scientific community to find it was a clumsy fake?
Nebraska Man was not a fake, and it was refuted within three years. You have been told this before. You are a liar for making the same false claim again.
Nothing you say can ever be trusted. Like so many creationists, you are nothing but a shameless, brazen liar.
To clarify, I meant that the idea of even six million years is fantasy;
That you are unable to comprehend the concept does not falsify it. That you appeal to your inability to comprehend the timespan as evidence that the timespan could not have occured suggests that you are irrational.
I know that that is not nearly as great as the evolutionist-purported age of the Earth.
The age of the earth was revised to well beyond six thousand years before Darwin was even born, much less before his theory was published.
And that causes me to think of a huge hole in my "law." (see my first post to this story) The supposed age of the Earth is being pushed back at a much faster rate than the date of modern humans is being pushed back.
Please provide evidence to support this assertion. Note that the currently accepted age of the earth was derived in 1956 and has not been revised since. Also explain the intended implication of your statement.
Yeah, it's probably premature at this point to formalize, but it's a trend I've been seeing in the news lately, like evidence of "recent" animals having existed long before they were "supposed" to have evolved
Perhaps you could provide a reference for this assertion. Cite timeframes that you have seen shifted, and show that concluding a pattern that will ultimately reach the estimated formation of the Earth is logical.
I was getting lots of laughs watching the issue over the wording of the textbook warning that was implemented in Cobb County, it was so damn neutral it offended both sides.
Actually, the disclaimer included an outright lie. I do not believe it irrational to object to students being taught demonstratable lies in school.
heh, and here I was about to say that here was where the evolutionists would start hemming and hawing about how they've been using the appendix as proof,
Please reference an "evolutionist" citing the appendix as "proof" of the theory of evolution.
A bigger challenge yet is to make some DNA from a rock and inject that into another rock, which then comes alive. That's what evolutionists claim happened originally, billions of years ago when minerals washed down from the rocky land into the "prebiotic soup" of warm seas.
Please stop lying. You will not falsify the theory of evolution by wrongly attributing the process of abiogenesis to it. You will also not falsify any biological concepts by making a gross misstatement of an abiogenesis hypothesis.
A proper uninstall should return an install slot to you
This was the line fed out by Elizabeth on the 2k Forums, but it was quickly exposed as a lie. Uninstalling the game does nothing in the way of sending SecuROM any data to free up an install slot.
I can't really understand the mindset of a company that chooses to so directly and so blatantly lie to its customers.
Nebraska man was speculation, not a "fake" or a "lie", that was revealed to be porcine rather than hominid during peer review, and it was disproven in three years with the finder of the tooth declaring doubts within two. It was never accepted as a human ancestor, and it certainly didn't last for forty years.
You are a liar. Anyone who has done even a little bit of research would see that your claims regarding Nebraska Man are a shameless, brazen lie.
What do you believe that you are proving by lying so transparently? Why should anyone believe anything that you say when you lie so blatantly?
One of the axioms of science is that the fundamental properties of the universe do not change over time. If you cannot demonstrate that the properties of genetic degredation from inbreeding do not apply under a set of specific circumstances, there is no reason to seriously consider the suggestion of descent of a massive population from two individuals absent any other evidence for the claim.
The so call Oort clout is a fictional mathematical construct that has never been shown to exist. Science is about measurements and observations, not fictional, dubious math based on assumptions. So until they actually observe this Oort cloud, the evidence stands
What evidence -- that allegedly "stands" -- have you that new comets can never form, then?
The known mechanisms for salt removal are insufficient for an equilibrium between input and output of salt. There is a detailed report here:
Do you even look to see if your claims haven't been rebutted already?
Whatever the detailed equations may be, taking account that the earth and moon are not point sources, the fact is that the forces and losses get larger as the bodies are closer, not smaller. Therefore in the past, the rate at which the moon receded must have been greater. So the evidence stands.
I notice that you do not actually address any of the content of the referenced article.
So the rocks under and around the falls are really old, like the earth, but the falls themselves are young? It seems they should all be the same age. maybe that evidence can be doubted.
Yes. The falls were formed by erosion which exposed ancient rocks. Have you actually looked at the geological conclusions of the Falls, or are you just parroting creationist claims without critical examination?
Remember: creationist literature has a specific agenda: the conclusions must correspond with Biblical literalism. Despite what creationists sources will dishonestly claim about a deliberat attempt to remove "God" from the picture, real scientists form conclusions based on the actual facts, not a preassumed conclusion.
Jupiter and Saturn radiate more heat than they get from the sun. If they were billions of years old, they would have cooled off by now to equilibrium. Radioactivity would have decayed by now also if these planets were billion of years old.
Ancient astronomers records tell us that Sirius was red, redder than Mars. Yet today Sirius is a white star. Is that an indication that stellar evolution proceeds much faster then thought? Don't tell me that ancient astronomers were mistaken in their star identification. They were actually quite advanced even though they had no telescopes yet.
You should not crib notes from Hovind. He is a known liar (and a tax dodger).
Maybe its not the theory itself so much rather than its philosophical underpinnings and implications.
You have yet to demonstrate that anything that you have asserted is a "philosophical underpinning" or "implication" of the theory of evolution.
It tries explain the incredible design of nature without a designer.
The theory of evolution attempts to address extant biodiversity based upon observations of extant life and evidence left behind by previously extant life. You have yet to demonstrate the presence of "design", thus your claim of "incredible design" is unsupported. The theory of evolution, like all theories, is a conclusion drawn from observations. Your suggestion that it resulted from a starting goal of an explanation that did not involve a designer is false; the theory references no "designer" because there is no evidence for such within the scope of observations that make up the theory, not because those who have authored and added to the theory sought to create an explanation that did not involve a designer.
It is plainly evident that life is too complex to have just happened without some thought and planning.
Claiming that something is "plainly evident" is not evidence that said thing is actually "plainly evident". Asserting a claim to be "plainly evident" is not a substitute for providing evidence.
Nobody would say that a computer or TV set did not have a designer.
This is a false analogy.
. Yet evolutionists will attribute the orders of magnitude more complex brain as having come to be without thought and planning.
As a human brain does not come into existence through the same processes by which televisions and computers come into existence, your analogy is invalid.
Any man made machine also requires maintenance.
This is not relevant.
Evolutionists deny the possible existence of a mind that made and sustains everything.
You are again making a sweeping generalization. You are asserting that all who accept evolution are of the same mindset. Your assumption is demonstratably false; either you are completely ignorant of the subject on which you speak, in which case nothing that you say on the subject can be considered credible, or you are lying, in which case nothing that you say on any subject can be considered credible.
No I am not. Evolution is man's attempt to explain our origins by means of impersonal probabilistic processes not involving any sort of thought process and activity of mind.
The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain extant biodiversity as a result of natural selection across multiple, different environments creating genetic isolation over time. Your explanation of evolution is wholly unsupported and false.
There are two opposing world views. One is that there is a governing mind behind our universe and the other is that everything happened and still happens by chance.
You have established a false dichotomy. The abscence of "a governing mind" is not always "chance". There exist deterministic systems with no intelligent input creating the output.
Evolution is NOT science, but a philosophical system that attempts to answer, without reference to God, the four most important questions any thinking human will seek an answer to.
Declaring that evolution is "NOT" science does not actually demonstrate that the theory of evolution is not science. Noting that the theory of evolution does not reference God is meaningless; as science does not address the supernatural, nothing in science references God.
1), Who am I? 2), Where did I come from? 3), Why am I here? 4), Where am I going after I die?
This is false. The theory of evolution addresses only 2, and then only with respect to biological ancestry. 1 and 3 are addressed (though, again, only with respect to biology) by biological science in general. 4 is not addressed by science at all, apart from the explanation of the physical process of decomposition.
I suggest that you obtain your information on the subject of evolution from sources other than creationists. Frequently, either they do not know about the subject, or they do not mind passing on false information.
1. Evolutionists says that you are not a special creation carefully and thoughtfully made by God, but only a cleverly arranged by chance set of chemicals.
This is a false generalization. The theory of evolution says nothing regarding divine origins, and as such cannot rule out the possibility of a God ultimately being responsible for human existence. Moreover, the theory of evolution does not claim that "chance" is responsible for the emergence of new species. Not all who accept evolution make the above claim, and the above claim is not derived from the theory of evolution. It is clear that you have not actually studied the subject on which you are speaking.
2. Evolutionists teach that life began in a broth of minerals washed down from the rocks of the earth. According to that, you DID come from a rock. God says you are a product of His love and thought, specially constructed with care.
This is false. "Evolutionists" as a whole do not have a single, universal explanation for life origins. The theory of evolution does not address the ultimate origin of life. The theory of evolution can only address events that occur after life is extant. As such, it is impossible for the theory of evolution to make any statements about where or how "life began". Again, you have demonstrated that you have not actually studied the theory of evolution.
Also, your allegation of a statement from God is unsourced. Please demonstrate that God did actually say what you claim that God said.
3). Evolutionists say that your only purpose is to survive and reproduce. God says you are made for loving interaction and fellowship with your creator, now and forever.
This is another false generalization. "Evolutionists" are not a uniform collective with a single viewpoint on the human purpose. The theory of evolution is merely descriptive; it cannot be used to derive "purpose". Any "purpose" that humans have, either collectively or as individuals, must be derived from something other than the theory of evolution. Your statement once more shows that you have not actually studied
There are clearly layers of ice covering Greenland. The assumption (belief) is that these are deposited at the rate of one layer annually. So they count the layers and based on the annual assumption, the bottom of the ice is hundreds of thousands years or even millions of years old.
Some aircraft that had crash landed there in WW2 were discovered after 42 years under 263 feet of ice. This glacial ice was compressed into several distinct layers per foot. This shows that these layers are NOT annual cycles, but simply periods of warmer and colder weather. Thus this evidence shows that the assumption about the annual nature of these layers is wrong. Therefore, these layers cannot be equated to years.
Scientists have determined that roughly 400 million tons of minerals are deposited yearly into the world's oceans. Today's mineral content (mostly NaCl) is less than 4%. At today's rate, IF it were really true that the earth is over a billion years old the water of the sea should be totally saturated with minerals. At the present rate, the salt content corresponds to around only 4000 years worth of accumulation.
This corresponds to about the time of the biblical flood.
Unless you count aluminium, which gives an age coresponding to 100 years ago.
This is evidence that the earth is not billions of years old, but still doesn't PROVE it, since we have no way of knowing whether the rate of mineral addition has always been constant. There also could have been a mechanism to remove minerals from the water, although so far nobody has come forward with a plausible mechanism.
You mean like runoff?
The fact that there are still comets in existence, even though their lifetime is only in the ten of thousands of years at most, shows that the solar system is not billions of years old.
The moon moves away from the earth a little each year. If the moon were billions of years old, it would have been destructively close for both bodies long before then.
If you want more evidence, I could give it to you.
Do you have any that do not confuse the age of things on the earth with the age of the earth itself? By your Niagra Falls-type reasoning, the earth can be no older than 29 years, because I have only existed for that long.
If someone has been taught his whole life and truly truly believes his great-great-xxxxx grandparents were animals
As humans are animals, this is not a false claim. Are you suggesting that we lie?
or even came from a rock,
Please cite someone who has seriously suggested that the theory of evolution postulates that humans "came from a rock".
is it really all that surprising when such an "animal" goes on a rampage with a gun and murders a bunch of his fellow animals in the high school?
Non-sequitur. Why would believing that a distant relative was an animal -- which, even for all human relatives, is true as humans are biologically classified as animals -- or believing, for reasons that you have yet to logically explain, that human descent involved rocks logically lead to committing mass murder with a firearm?
Columbine, anyone?
Please demonstrate that the Columbine massacre was a result of the killers accepting that human ancestors were animals (which, as I have explained, is true because humans are classified as animals) or a belief that some of their ancestors were rocks. You are, at the moment, speculating without evidence. Explain the millions who understand and accept that humans are animals who do not go on killing sprees. Explain how your appeal to -- thus far undemonstrated -- consequence is not a logical fallacy.
Is it surprising if someone like Hitler thought he could help evolution by eliminating what he considered undesirable subhuman mis-evolved specimens by gassing 6 million of them?
Please demonstrate that Hitler believed that he was "helping" evolution. Note that evolution cannot be "helped", as such would imply a goal, which evolution does not have. That is academic, however, as you have yet to demonstrate that Hitler actually based his beliefs and practices on the theory of evolution. Note that merely asserting that Hitler based his ideology on the theory of evolution is not actually evidence that Hitler based his ideology on the theory of evolution.
Is it really so surprising that our society has declared living babies in the womb as mere tissue and eliminated about 40 million since that court edict became law?
Please demonstrate that this is a result of the theory of evolution.
If humans are nothing more than a cosmic evolutionary accident, then humans are not valuable and murder is only a societal convention rather than a affront to the sanctity of life and to the God who created life.
The theory of evolution does not state that humans are "nothing more than a cosmic evolutionary accident". You are attacking a strawman, and you are not even providing a logical connection to the alleged consequences of your strawman.
Need more evidence?
"More evidence" would imply that you have presented some evidence already. You have not. You have cited certain events and claimed, without evidence, that the theory of evolution or acceptance of the fact that humans are animals or acceptance of the strawman that human origins involved rocks is somehow responsible for those events. Your entire argument is the logical fallacy of appeal to consequence and it is grounded in a strawman of the theory of evolution. Your attempt to conflate evolution with the claim that humans are an "accident" suggests either that you do not actually understand the theory of evolution or that you are a liar.
However in true science there is REPEATABLE evidence.
This is irrelevant. Repetition of an event does not amount to scientific proof. It only results in a larger sampling of data points from which conclusions may be drawn.
Until we have a time machine, there is no way to go back to the beginning or any other time before the present and do some experiments or observations.
To what manner of "experiments" do you refer? Also, are you unaware of the current observations used in support of the theory of evolution?
All we can do until then, stuck in the present, is make certain assumptions (beliefs) about the past and then trot out 'evidence' that supports these assumptions
Evidence is discovered in DNA and the fossil record. It is not "trotted out", it is published. If you wish to take issue with the currently presented evidence, then do so. Thus far you have badmouthed the entire field of study without offering any evidence that you even understand the arguments used in support of the theory of evolution.
and vehemently try to suppress any evidence that is refutes these basic assumptions (belief).
Please provide evidence of any vehement supression. Be specific.
Therefore indeed, the study of origins is philosophy, religion, a world view, not science.
You have, thus far, provided no evidence to support your assertions, nor even any evidence that you have actually researched the subject on which you speak.
You are comparing a general event of genetic defects resulting from inbreeding over time with a single event of a specific individual emerging at a specific time.
The only reason people ever thought the "origin of the species" was in Africa is because it supported their argument that blacks (and Khosians) are less "evolved" than whites (and Chinese).
This is false. Theories regarding African origins of homo sapiens are derived from the locations at which hominid fossils have been located.
Your claim is based upon no factual evidence whatsoever. I suspect that you are dishonestly fabricating the assertion, as a means of attempting to discredit valid science through lies.
Remember the search for the missing link? They thought it was Piltdown man, but when it turned out to be a hoax they said that the link must be further back
I am curious. Do you have an arugment that is not a dishonest strawman?
No way to know before that, which is why evolutionists are dishonest.
Please explain the dishonesty. Refer to specific actual statements and state why they are dishonest.
Evolutionism is a useless, dangerous and deadly religion.
Please substantiate your claim -- that evolution is a "religion", that it is "useless", that it is "deadly" and that it is "dangerous" -- with evidence.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's put it this way, darwinism is just a theory and we're still trying to *prove* it.
Theories in science are never proven. Theories are the endpoints of scientific inquiry. A scientific explanation does not attain the status of "theory" until it has been accepted with a high degree of confidence amongst a significant number of experts who study the relevant field.
has in it more the a tacit suggestion that those who believe in Christian teachings
Wherein was Christianity specifically referenced?
I think the problem may be that the evolution scientist have yet to back up all their statements with a single study done in the lab which can show even two consecutive mutations occuring in any life form and this mutation:
a) proving beneficial
b) surviving to the next generation
Personally, I believe that the problem is that creationists refuse to do any research, and then they make demonstratably false claims by assuming that their lack of research is equivalent to a lack of actual evidence.
Nebraska man
A lie and a fake for 40 years.
By then everyone in the world thought they were from apes.
How did it take 40 years for the scientific community to find it was a clumsy fake?
Nebraska Man was not a fake, and it was refuted within three years. You have been told this before. You are a liar for making the same false claim again.
Nothing you say can ever be trusted. Like so many creationists, you are nothing but a shameless, brazen liar.
To clarify, I meant that the idea of even six million years is fantasy;
That you are unable to comprehend the concept does not falsify it. That you appeal to your inability to comprehend the timespan as evidence that the timespan could not have occured suggests that you are irrational.
I know that that is not nearly as great as the evolutionist-purported age of the Earth.
The age of the earth was revised to well beyond six thousand years before Darwin was even born, much less before his theory was published.
And that causes me to think of a huge hole in my "law." (see my first post to this story) The supposed age of the Earth is being pushed back at a much faster rate than the date of modern humans is being pushed back.
Please provide evidence to support this assertion. Note that the currently accepted age of the earth was derived in 1956 and has not been revised since. Also explain the intended implication of your statement.
Yeah, it's probably premature at this point to formalize, but it's a trend I've been seeing in the news lately, like evidence of "recent" animals having existed long before they were "supposed" to have evolved
Perhaps you could provide a reference for this assertion. Cite timeframes that you have seen shifted, and show that concluding a pattern that will ultimately reach the estimated formation of the Earth is logical.
I was getting lots of laughs watching the issue over the wording of the textbook warning that was implemented in Cobb County, it was so damn neutral it offended both sides.
Actually, the disclaimer included an outright lie. I do not believe it irrational to object to students being taught demonstratable lies in school.
Creation Scientists demonstrated in studies and experiments a decade ago that the appendix aids in immunity and radiation resistance.
Please name these "Creation Scientists" and cite their relevant research.
Evolutionary theory only succeeds through the use of semantics, not from facts of nature.
This is false. Had you actually studied the theory of evolution, you would know this.
heh, and here I was about to say that here was where the evolutionists would start hemming and hawing about how they've been using the appendix as proof,
Please reference an "evolutionist" citing the appendix as "proof" of the theory of evolution.
A bigger challenge yet is to make some DNA from a rock and inject that into another rock, which then comes alive. That's what evolutionists claim happened originally, billions of years ago when minerals washed down from the rocky land into the "prebiotic soup" of warm seas.
Please stop lying. You will not falsify the theory of evolution by wrongly attributing the process of abiogenesis to it. You will also not falsify any biological concepts by making a gross misstatement of an abiogenesis hypothesis.
A proper uninstall should return an install slot to you
This was the line fed out by Elizabeth on the 2k Forums, but it was quickly exposed as a lie. Uninstalling the game does nothing in the way of sending SecuROM any data to free up an install slot.
I can't really understand the mindset of a company that chooses to so directly and so blatantly lie to its customers.
Nebraska man
A lie and a fake for 40 years.
Nebraska man was speculation, not a "fake" or a "lie", that was revealed to be porcine rather than hominid during peer review, and it was disproven in three years with the finder of the tooth declaring doubts within two. It was never accepted as a human ancestor, and it certainly didn't last for forty years.
You are a liar. Anyone who has done even a little bit of research would see that your claims regarding Nebraska Man are a shameless, brazen lie.
What do you believe that you are proving by lying so transparently? Why should anyone believe anything that you say when you lie so blatantly?
It's not that it's a "faith", per se. It's just that it's a theory based on the NON-existence of a creator.
No, it isn't, you liar.
You won't score any points with outright lies.
One of the axioms of science is that the fundamental properties of the universe do not change over time. If you cannot demonstrate that the properties of genetic degredation from inbreeding do not apply under a set of specific circumstances, there is no reason to seriously consider the suggestion of descent of a massive population from two individuals absent any other evidence for the claim.
The so call Oort clout is a fictional mathematical construct that has never been shown to exist. Science is about measurements and observations, not fictional, dubious math based on assumptions. So until they actually observe this Oort cloud, the evidence stands
What evidence -- that allegedly "stands" -- have you that new comets can never form, then?
The known mechanisms for salt removal are insufficient for an equilibrium between input and output of salt. There is a detailed report here:
http://tccsa.tc/articles/ocean_sodium.html
Already addressed.
Do you even look to see if your claims haven't been rebutted already?
Whatever the detailed equations may be, taking account that the earth and moon are not point sources, the fact is that the forces and losses get larger as the bodies are closer, not smaller. Therefore in the past, the rate at which the moon receded must have been greater. So the evidence stands.
I notice that you do not actually address any of the content of the referenced article.
So the rocks under and around the falls are really old, like the earth, but the falls themselves are young? It seems they should all be the same age. maybe that evidence can be doubted.
Yes. The falls were formed by erosion which exposed ancient rocks. Have you actually looked at the geological conclusions of the Falls, or are you just parroting creationist claims without critical examination?
Remember: creationist literature has a specific agenda: the conclusions must correspond with Biblical literalism. Despite what creationists sources will dishonestly claim about a deliberat attempt to remove "God" from the picture, real scientists form conclusions based on the actual facts, not a preassumed conclusion.
Jupiter and Saturn radiate more heat than they get from the sun. If they were billions of years old, they would have cooled off by now to equilibrium. Radioactivity would have decayed by now also if these planets were billion of years old.
You really haven't done any research, have you?
Ancient astronomers records tell us that Sirius was red, redder than Mars. Yet today Sirius is a white star. Is that an indication that stellar evolution proceeds much faster then thought? Don't tell me that ancient astronomers were mistaken in their star identification. They were actually quite advanced even though they had no telescopes yet.
You should not crib notes from Hovind. He is a known liar (and a tax dodger).
Maybe its not the theory itself so much rather than its philosophical underpinnings and implications.
You have yet to demonstrate that anything that you have asserted is a "philosophical underpinning" or "implication" of the theory of evolution.
It tries explain the incredible design of nature without a designer.
The theory of evolution attempts to address extant biodiversity based upon observations of extant life and evidence left behind by previously extant life. You have yet to demonstrate the presence of "design", thus your claim of "incredible design" is unsupported. The theory of evolution, like all theories, is a conclusion drawn from observations. Your suggestion that it resulted from a starting goal of an explanation that did not involve a designer is false; the theory references no "designer" because there is no evidence for such within the scope of observations that make up the theory, not because those who have authored and added to the theory sought to create an explanation that did not involve a designer.
It is plainly evident that life is too complex to have just happened without some thought and planning.
Claiming that something is "plainly evident" is not evidence that said thing is actually "plainly evident". Asserting a claim to be "plainly evident" is not a substitute for providing evidence.
Nobody would say that a computer or TV set did not have a designer.
This is a false analogy.
. Yet evolutionists will attribute the orders of magnitude more complex brain as having come to be without thought and planning.
As a human brain does not come into existence through the same processes by which televisions and computers come into existence, your analogy is invalid.
Any man made machine also requires maintenance.
This is not relevant.
Evolutionists deny the possible existence of a mind that made and sustains everything.
You are again making a sweeping generalization. You are asserting that all who accept evolution are of the same mindset. Your assumption is demonstratably false; either you are completely ignorant of the subject on which you speak, in which case nothing that you say on the subject can be considered credible, or you are lying, in which case nothing that you say on any subject can be considered credible.
No I am not. Evolution is man's attempt to explain our origins by means of impersonal probabilistic processes not involving any sort of thought process and activity of mind.
The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain extant biodiversity as a result of natural selection across multiple, different environments creating genetic isolation over time. Your explanation of evolution is wholly unsupported and false.
There are two opposing world views. One is that there is a governing mind behind our universe and the other is that everything happened and still happens by chance.
You have established a false dichotomy. The abscence of "a governing mind" is not always "chance". There exist deterministic systems with no intelligent input creating the output.
Evolution is NOT science, but a philosophical system that attempts to answer, without reference to God, the four most important questions any thinking human will seek an answer to.
Declaring that evolution is "NOT" science does not actually demonstrate that the theory of evolution is not science. Noting that the theory of evolution does not reference God is meaningless; as science does not address the supernatural, nothing in science references God.
1), Who am I? 2), Where did I come from? 3), Why am I here? 4), Where am I going after I die?
This is false. The theory of evolution addresses only 2, and then only with respect to biological ancestry. 1 and 3 are addressed (though, again, only with respect to biology) by biological science in general. 4 is not addressed by science at all, apart from the explanation of the physical process of decomposition.
I suggest that you obtain your information on the subject of evolution from sources other than creationists. Frequently, either they do not know about the subject, or they do not mind passing on false information.
1. Evolutionists says that you are not a special creation carefully and thoughtfully made by God, but only a cleverly arranged by chance set of chemicals.
This is a false generalization. The theory of evolution says nothing regarding divine origins, and as such cannot rule out the possibility of a God ultimately being responsible for human existence. Moreover, the theory of evolution does not claim that "chance" is responsible for the emergence of new species. Not all who accept evolution make the above claim, and the above claim is not derived from the theory of evolution. It is clear that you have not actually studied the subject on which you are speaking.
2. Evolutionists teach that life began in a broth of minerals washed down from the rocks of the earth. According to that, you DID come from a rock. God says you are a product of His love and thought, specially constructed with care.
This is false. "Evolutionists" as a whole do not have a single, universal explanation for life origins. The theory of evolution does not address the ultimate origin of life. The theory of evolution can only address events that occur after life is extant. As such, it is impossible for the theory of evolution to make any statements about where or how "life began". Again, you have demonstrated that you have not actually studied the theory of evolution.
Also, your allegation of a statement from God is unsourced. Please demonstrate that God did actually say what you claim that God said.
3). Evolutionists say that your only purpose is to survive and reproduce. God says you are made for loving interaction and fellowship with your creator, now and forever.
This is another false generalization. "Evolutionists" are not a uniform collective with a single viewpoint on the human purpose. The theory of evolution is merely descriptive; it cannot be used to derive "purpose". Any "purpose" that humans have, either collectively or as individuals, must be derived from something other than the theory of evolution. Your statement once more shows that you have not actually studied
There are clearly layers of ice covering Greenland. The assumption (belief) is that these are deposited at the rate of one layer annually. So they count the layers and based on the annual assumption, the bottom of the ice is hundreds of thousands years or even millions of years old.
Some aircraft that had crash landed there in WW2 were discovered after 42 years under 263 feet of ice. This glacial ice was compressed into several distinct layers per foot. This shows that these layers are NOT annual cycles, but simply periods of warmer and colder weather. Thus this evidence shows that the assumption about the annual nature of these layers is wrong. Therefore, these layers cannot be equated to years.
Addressed here. Ice cores are not dated by thickness.
Scientists have determined that roughly 400 million tons of minerals are deposited yearly into the world's oceans. Today's mineral content (mostly NaCl) is less than 4%. At today's rate, IF it were really true that the earth is over a billion years old the water of the sea should be totally saturated with minerals. At the present rate, the salt content corresponds to around only 4000 years worth of accumulation.
Addressed here.
This corresponds to about the time of the biblical flood.
Unless you count aluminium, which gives an age coresponding to 100 years ago.
This is evidence that the earth is not billions of years old, but still doesn't PROVE it, since we have no way of knowing whether the rate of mineral addition has always been constant. There also could have been a mechanism to remove minerals from the water, although so far nobody has come forward with a plausible mechanism.
You mean like runoff?
The fact that there are still comets in existence, even though their lifetime is only in the ten of thousands of years at most, shows that the solar system is not billions of years old.
Are you suggesting that new comets can never come into existence?
The moon moves away from the earth a little each year. If the moon were billions of years old, it would have been destructively close for both bodies long before then.
Sure, if you don't understand gravity.
At the present rate of erosion, Niagara Falls should have long ago disappeared into lake Erie, if
they were millions of years old.
The age of Niagra Falls is not the age of the earth.
If you want more evidence, I could give it to you.
Do you have any that do not confuse the age of things on the earth with the age of the earth itself? By your Niagra Falls-type reasoning, the earth can be no older than 29 years, because I have only existed for that long.
If someone has been taught his whole life and truly truly believes his great-great-xxxxx grandparents were animals
As humans are animals, this is not a false claim. Are you suggesting that we lie?
or even came from a rock,
Please cite someone who has seriously suggested that the theory of evolution postulates that humans "came from a rock".
is it really all that surprising when such an "animal" goes on a rampage with a gun and murders a bunch of his fellow animals in the high school?
Non-sequitur. Why would believing that a distant relative was an animal -- which, even for all human relatives, is true as humans are biologically classified as animals -- or believing, for reasons that you have yet to logically explain, that human descent involved rocks logically lead to committing mass murder with a firearm?
Columbine, anyone?
Please demonstrate that the Columbine massacre was a result of the killers accepting that human ancestors were animals (which, as I have explained, is true because humans are classified as animals) or a belief that some of their ancestors were rocks. You are, at the moment, speculating without evidence. Explain the millions who understand and accept that humans are animals who do not go on killing sprees. Explain how your appeal to -- thus far undemonstrated -- consequence is not a logical fallacy.
Is it surprising if someone like Hitler thought he could help evolution by eliminating what he considered undesirable subhuman mis-evolved specimens by gassing 6 million of them?
Please demonstrate that Hitler believed that he was "helping" evolution. Note that evolution cannot be "helped", as such would imply a goal, which evolution does not have. That is academic, however, as you have yet to demonstrate that Hitler actually based his beliefs and practices on the theory of evolution. Note that merely asserting that Hitler based his ideology on the theory of evolution is not actually evidence that Hitler based his ideology on the theory of evolution.
Is it really so surprising that our society has declared living babies in the womb as mere tissue and eliminated about 40 million since that court edict became law?
Please demonstrate that this is a result of the theory of evolution.
If humans are nothing more than a cosmic evolutionary accident, then humans are not valuable and murder is only a societal convention rather than a affront to the sanctity of life and to the God who created life.
The theory of evolution does not state that humans are "nothing more than a cosmic evolutionary accident". You are attacking a strawman, and you are not even providing a logical connection to the alleged consequences of your strawman.
Need more evidence?
"More evidence" would imply that you have presented some evidence already. You have not. You have cited certain events and claimed, without evidence, that the theory of evolution or acceptance of the fact that humans are animals or acceptance of the strawman that human origins involved rocks is somehow responsible for those events. Your entire argument is the logical fallacy of appeal to consequence and it is grounded in a strawman of the theory of evolution. Your attempt to conflate evolution with the claim that humans are an "accident" suggests either that you do not actually understand the theory of evolution or that you are a liar.
However in true science there is REPEATABLE evidence.
This is irrelevant. Repetition of an event does not amount to scientific proof. It only results in a larger sampling of data points from which conclusions may be drawn.
Until we have a time machine, there is no way to go back to the beginning or any other time before the present and do some experiments or observations.
To what manner of "experiments" do you refer? Also, are you unaware of the current observations used in support of the theory of evolution?
All we can do until then, stuck in the present, is make certain assumptions (beliefs) about the past and then trot out 'evidence' that supports these assumptions
Evidence is discovered in DNA and the fossil record. It is not "trotted out", it is published. If you wish to take issue with the currently presented evidence, then do so. Thus far you have badmouthed the entire field of study without offering any evidence that you even understand the arguments used in support of the theory of evolution.
and vehemently try to suppress any evidence that is refutes these basic assumptions (belief).
Please provide evidence of any vehement supression. Be specific.
Therefore indeed, the study of origins is philosophy, religion, a world view, not science.
You have, thus far, provided no evidence to support your assertions, nor even any evidence that you have actually researched the subject on which you speak.
You are comparing a general event of genetic defects resulting from inbreeding over time with a single event of a specific individual emerging at a specific time.
The only reason people ever thought the "origin of the species" was in Africa is because it supported their argument that blacks (and Khosians) are less "evolved" than whites (and Chinese).
This is false. Theories regarding African origins of homo sapiens are derived from the locations at which hominid fossils have been located.
Your claim is based upon no factual evidence whatsoever. I suspect that you are dishonestly fabricating the assertion, as a means of attempting to discredit valid science through lies.
Remember the search for the missing link? They thought it was Piltdown man, but when it turned out to be a hoax they said that the link must be further back
I am curious. Do you have an arugment that is not a dishonest strawman?
No way to know before that, which is why evolutionists are dishonest.
Please explain the dishonesty. Refer to specific actual statements and state why they are dishonest.
Evolutionism is a useless, dangerous and deadly religion.
Please substantiate your claim -- that evolution is a "religion", that it is "useless", that it is "deadly" and that it is "dangerous" -- with evidence.
- science is of the proven
Nothing in science is ever proven. Your statement demonstrates that you do not understand science.
- the sum of context (ie. evolution, darwinism, etc.) is often indistinguishable from faith
Only to those who have done no research, or to those who are willfully ignorant. Or to those who are liars, like zukester.