Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 32. (Read 108046 times)

I don't know a single scientist that have ever said that we know there is no God.

You can't prove that there is no God.
It doesn't make sense, could you prove there are no dragons? No unicorns?

But it's not because there is no proof of God that it means there is a God. You're free to believe God created the world this way and the evolution. Sure. Why not?

Still, evolution is real and has been largely proven. That evolution exists because of God is out of the subject because no one will ever prove that it's true or false.

Lennox's explanation shows how evolution and God are perfectly compatible. Here's his quote.

"The success of science sometimes leads people to think that because we can understand the mechanisms of the universe, then we can safely conclude that there was no God who designed and created the universe in the first place. This reasoning commits a logical error in that it confuses mechanism and agency.

Consider a Ford motor car. It is conceivable that someone who was seeing one for the first time and who knew no science might imagine that there is a god (Mr. Ford) inside the engine, making it go. Of course, if he were subsequently to study engineering and take apart the engine, he would discover that there is no Mr. Ford inside it. He would also see that he did not need to introduce Mr. Ford as an explanation for its working; his grasp of the impersonal principles of internal combustion would be enough to do that. However, if he then decided that his understanding of the principles of how the engine worked made it impossible to believe in the existence of a Mr. Ford who designed the engine in the first place, this would be patently false. Had there never been a Mr. Ford to design the mechanisms, none would exist for him to understand. It is equally mistaken to suppose that our scientific understanding of the impersonal principles according to which the universe works makes it either unnecessary or impossible to believe in the existence of a personal Creator who designed, made, and upholds it."

I'm trying to go step by step...
First he says "not a majority of scientists believe in evolution" so I want to at the very least make him admit that he was wrong (probably just lying) and that the very vast majority do agree on the evolution theory.

Then we'll try to explain him why 97% of the scientists of the world are very unlikely to be wrong...

I think the key phrase is "Even if"

HE WONT ADMIT ANYTHING EVER. I showed him statistics plenty of times and he never admits to be wrong, he is a delusional idiot, nothing to do with him.

Evolution is real but Human evolution is different from Primate Evolution because all humans belongs to the same species.If these definition downward goes for Human evolution,then there is no relation between Human and monkeys,it is just natural that they behave like human beings,they possess more developed brains too.




Human evolution is about the origin of human beings. All humans belong to the same species, which has spread from its birthplace in Africa to almost all parts of the world. Its origin in Africa is proved by the fossils which have been found there. The term 'human' in this context means the genus Homo.

By the way, there is something I don't understand.

If you believe evolution is a hoax, does that mean humans have always existed? Or where do we come from?

So, after you literaly said "not a majority of scientists believe in evolution" you admit you're wrong at least?

Oh, puH-lease.

Even if the majority of scientists believed evolution, so what? Often the majority have been wrong. In this case, most of the believers simply believe what their evolutionist colleagues say. They haven't taken time to do the investigations themselves... at least not in a conclusive way.

But... I DO thank you for this link. I'm sure there are many more like it. Why do I thank you? Because the whole talk at the site talks about what scientists believe, not what they know. Since they believe that evolution is real, why do they not say it? Rather, many of them say that evolution is real, when they only believe it.

Who owns "Joe's Corner Pizza?" Almost 100% of the patrons believe that Joe owns it. How many of them know that Joe owns it? The few who looked at the deed... or doesn't Joe own it?

Same with scientists and evolution. The more who say that evolution is real, the bigger hoax it becomes, because none of them have proof.

Evolution is a hoax.

Please,

http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/

97% of scientists fully support evolution theory.

There is NO DEBATE on evolution, the only debate there is is here, because of people like you who are not much more clever than flat earthers.

Evolution is only real from the standpoint that there are many books about it, many websites about it, and many people thinking and talking about it. There absolutely is no proof that evolution exists in nature.

Evolution is a hoax... or does somebody have some proof that is not just talk? Please show it here.

You are perfectly right, abiogenesis is a very difficult problem to solve. I will take it one step further. Even if scientists could one day find a way to synthesize life from inorganic materials, it would only be evidence that life could exist from non-life, however it still can not be evidence that life could exist from randomness. Those scientists doing the experiment would resemble intelligent design, they would act as agency in the way God acts to create life from inorganic substances via natural albeit carefully designed procedures. The only way to show that intelligent design is unnecessary is to simply put the inorganic materials together randomly and leave the laboratory, and then one day come back to find those substances alive.

To me, it seems like DNA or "the book of life" is much more complex than the most sophisticated Shakespeare, and I find it difficult to believe that this book could have been written to perfection (for life to occur) by random, unintelligent processes.

Different theories for different problems. The origin of life is a very difficult problem to solve since there was only one or few instances of it and we can't go back in time, the evidence is also really weak since it only happened in the beginning, it's not a process that has been happening all the time like evolution. Abiogenesis is doing quite well but we can't be sure, even though it proved that most amino acids can be synthesized from inorganic compounds it's still not complete. We will never be able to know exactly what happened in the beginning even if we create complex life, we can't be sure that's what happened.

 

I agree, evolution needs to deal with this central issue of the origin of life, ignoring the issue does not make it go away.

Actually, evolution HAS to deal with abiogenesis. Why? Because in everyday life, somehow inorganic material becomes organic. This is shown in the fact of the food we eat.

Let's say that we as people never eat anything that is not organic. But what about the organic food that we eat? Where is the point that it was NOT organic?

When you plant the seed, the seed is organic. As it is sprouting into a plant, does it ever "eat" and utilize-for-growth any inorganic material? Or does it absorb and use only organic material that humic microbes convert into organic material?

If it is the microbes that convert the inorganic matter into organic material, there is something very similar to abiogenesis happening right there.

Abiogenesis is part of the whole evolution process. Evolution wouldn't exist without abiogenesis. BUT, neither of them exist, so what's the point of talking about them? Nice science fiction, but stupid regarding reality.

''I also don't believe evolution's explanation for how the first living organism came about either.'' Evolution doesn't deal with that and your alternative is a super intelligent all knowing being that snapped us into creation.

I won't believe that humans evolved from single cell bacteria billions of years ago until I see evidence of it. I also don't believe evolution's explanation for how the first living organism came about either.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 

The best FE people have is FE. The best evolutionists have is evolution.

 

1 guy? Stephen C. Meyer is an American advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design. this guy?

The scientific community has made it every clear, evolution theory is the best we have right now and evolution is a fact, there is no scientific debate. Just like the earth is not flat, of course idiots debate it but scientifically everyone knows it's not flat.