10. Pagan Origins of Evolution: Evolution and its related concepts did not originate from science. The concept of evolution emerged from the imaginations of men. Evolution is based in pagan mythology while later promoted among Greek philosophers like Anaximander and Democritus. Diodorus Siculus, a 1st c. BC historian, presented evolution in his “Universal History”, which was one of the beliefs of the ancient Egyptians. Diodorus recorded that the Egyptians believed that life originated in swamps and marshes eventually resulting in other life forms. This myth also included descriptions of the early beastial life of men living in caves, gathering food, discovering fire, and developing unintelligible sounds into languages. Read more.
9. The Unique Planetary Habitability of Earth: Evolution proposes that Earth was formed by chance and so happening to support life. Earth is exceptionally unique and balanced just right for complex life, and even for intelligent life to be able to observe and admire the beautiful order of the Earth and the cosmos. The Earth has all the necessary conditions to maintain life being in the habitable zone of the Sun while consisting of the right amount of water, protective “gas giant” planets, the ideal orbit for stable temperatures, a precise axial tilt to maintain seasons and warmth, a protective magnetic field, an exact placement in the galaxy, and essential elements of biochemistry. These conditions are contrary to evolution’s premise that the Earth and its solar system came to be by undirected mechanisms. Read more.
8. Hoaxes of Evolution: Evolution rests upon conjectures and frauds. Find a “missing link”, then one has found an animal fit into a presumptuous fantasy, and the animal is many times imaginary. These invented and unverified animals are nothing short of hoaxes and soon to be confirmed frauds since these “missing links” are based solely upon conjecture. The list of evolutionary hoaxes presented as primitive man include the Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Orce man, Cro-magnon, and Neanderthal specimen. Another hoax that stands out is Haeckel’s embryos. This fraud is still used in textbooks to indoctrinate children and adolescents that they evolved through forms of animals in the womb. There is no doubt that this lies behind the U.S.’s 50 million dismembered and poisoned human fetuses since 1973 as seen by Carl Sagan’s belief that unborn children are just animals. Read more.
7. The Irreducible Order of Life: The complex order of each organelle within the cell makes up an amazing machine made of thousands of nanomachines cooperating with each other. The wonder of motor proteins like kinesins walking on cytoskeleton leaves evolutionists conjecturing how these proteins could happen by chance. Imagining the processes of the cell reveals a complex order equal from within by its genetic code. The cell is one example of the irreducible order of life. Read more, [2].
6. The Existence of DNA: People learn and educate themselves to communicate in complex languages and intelligently design complex computer codes. Yet supposedly according to evolution, nature formulated its own code against the odds and this code came to contain more than a trillion bits of data in the simplest life forms that are known to exist. No non-symbiotic lifeform has been discovered with a simpler genome than the trillion bits of code in E. coli. As has been pointed out by others, if SETI received a code being a millionth in size to any strand of DNA, then evolutionists would declare the existence of intelligent life somewhere else in the Universe. A person can only accept this evidence if they understand that codes must be designed, and that codes can neither make themselves nor are formed by chance as evolution conveniently presumes. Read more.
5. Unreliable Dating Methods: With a half-life of 5,730 years, a consistent decrease of the isotope Carbon-14 in organic material would offer reliable dating method within about 60,000 years if presumably 14C has been constant in the atmosphere through the millennia and that the organic material being dated had no contamination or preexisting 14C. Add to this that the fossil fuels that are supposed to be millions of years old have detectable amounts of Carbon-14 (Chemical History of 14C in Deep Oil Fields, Carbon-14 Content of Fossil Carbon, [3], [4]). Either measuring Carbon-14 is an unreliable means of dating and, or the Earth is less than 60,000 years old. How is it determined that fossil fuels are millions of years old? Fossil fuels are so dated upon the observer’s preferred interpretation and assumptions, who chooses between a dating method like 14C for thousands of years or Potassium-Argon dating for millions of years. Also, be aware that dating methods for millions of years have similar difficulties and no comparable millions of years of history to verify the method in the first place.
4. The Law of Cause and Effect: This law affirms that every effect has a greater cause, which we all observe this to be true by our own experience. Trace the effect of every cause back and there is the great cause of all. Darwinists assert that the Big Bang caused the Universe, and that the Big Bang came from an atemporal void, a timeless nothing. This is to say that something came from nothing contradicting the Law of Cause and Effect. This timeless void or any speculations of eternal energy are ideas invented in disregard to the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, which affirm that energy can neither be created nor destroyed and that energy is becoming increasingly unusable. Read more.
3. The Law of Biogenesis: As Louis Pasteur affirmed, life only comes from life, and life only produces life after its own kind. This scientific fact is indisputable and none of the hundreds of experimental tests have yet disproved this scientific Law. No life has ever been made in the lab. No life has ever evolved from nothing. Still, the evolutionist conjectures without proof that
there could have been a time when this might have happened given a great amount of time and a number of other assumptions. Read more.
2. The Existence of Constant Virtues: If we speculate that we are evolved apes, why not also reason that we are all animals, and so let all act like animals? Why trust the person who believes humans are animals equating our value to apes and animals alike and thus undermining all human rights? Why believe someone who claims to be an ape having the morals of an ape and laying aside any constant standard of right and wrong? Why trust those who see the virtue of honesty as an invention of man rather than a constant moral? Would such a person have the honesty to describe to their spouses and those they care about how they think love came to be by simply emerging by chance and, or through the inventions of evolved apes? Rejecting constant virtues has a number of prejudices at its foundation. The guilty conscience prefers relative morality to be comfortable, appealing, and pleasing. Yet, finding that virtues are eternal and can only exist via a person, then there must be an eternal personality, an eternal Creator. Compare Jesus’ words of the equality and value of every person as opposed by Charles Darwin’s words. In his book, “The Descent of Man”, Darwin refers to “negroes”, Australians, and Polynesians as savages, who are not as evolved as Caucasians. Darwin promoted the idea of the limited “intellectual powers” of women, whose intelligence according to Darwin does not compare to the “attaining to higher eminence” and “inventive genius” of men. Read more. Yet, honest readers of the Bible see that the Bible opposes such hatred against women, other races and all peoples. For instance, note the article, “What is so Wrong with Biblical Slavery?“
1. The Verification of Jesus as the Christ: The legal maxim and standard of verifying truth states that truth is established to certainty by two or three primary sources. These sources are tested against deception by verifying these sources to be consistent on two or more points and without two or three explicit contradictions. By this standard, the writers of the Gospels testify of what they saw and heard, and they testified in providing the testimonies of other eyewitnesses. These written testimonies remain for an honest examination before all. The written statements of the Gospels verify the predicted Messiah, His miracles, His fulfilled predictions of Jerusalem’s destruction, and His resurrection (Acts 10:39-43). Jesus presented these evidences Himself (John 5:31ff). Being confirmed as the predicted Christ, Jesus testified to the Genesis account of the Creation of the Universe, and those who love Him trust and know that His words are true (Matt. 19:4-9, Mark 10:5-9). Read more about how Jesus proved Himself to be Christ.
A popular article with no comments yet. Not even one rebuttal yet?
Great job! Absolutely agree!
Thank you for your encouragement. Spread the Truth.
When will you be publishing your findings in a peer reviewed scientific journal? I’m sure the scientific community would be overjoyed to read about your evidence for god.
Your comment does not make sense. This is a secondary source interpreting primary sources. See the 2 references to primary sources from journals on point #5.
You do know that the scientific proof above are found in peer reviewed journals? I certainly do not have to cite a primary historical source from a journal.
All the peer reviewed articles for Darwinian evolution are secondary interpretations of primary sources. Wait. Was Darwin’s theory peer reviewed? No. Did Darwin cite any primary sources? No.
When will the Darwinists invite the Creationists to even present a paper at an academic conference? Why not discredit Intelligent Design if it were not true?
Scientests will invite a creationist to present a paper when they do some science. They haven’t yet.
ID is discredited. Some people just refuse to admit it. I’m looking at you, Scott.
This is denial asking for the evidence already given and yet not giving any proof in return.
Please don’t be ridiculous. Evolution is a well founded scientific theory of great explanatory power. There are also the vast selection of facts that evolution explains. Pelvic bones in whales is just one. The many incidents of observed speciation is a whole list of others.
You are a person waving your arms and shouting “NO!” You are the one saying “I am right and all those people are professionals in the field are wrong!” The burden of proof is on you. Provide some. You are trying this silly shift because you know you have no evidence and you should admit it. I gave two examples above. You have given none.
Why don’t you do with my first 3 points above for evidence? That’s what I intended them for.
Umm, the ones in the original post? Not evidence, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you.
Still waiting for your evidence.
I’m still trying to figure out what you are talking about, these “first 3 points”. You are a poor writer and it is difficult to parse you sometimes. Are you referring to you “primary source” nonsense? Wow… so much stupid.
So, you have no evidence for your god. No big surprise there. I’m unsure what you’re talking about when you say Darwinists, but all a creationist has to do is present a paper at an academic conference. Intelligent design has already been thoroughly discredited. It’s religion. If anyone in the intelligent design religion has new evidence to prove their assertions, then they should present it in a paper. They don’t need anyone’s invitation.
Does ignoring evidence contrary to your world view give you pleasure, ease your conscience and, or relieve stress?
When you present some evidence contrary to my world view, we can talk about what it does for me. You haven’t presented any; neither has any creationist or intelligent design religion advocate. Everyone is eager and excited to hear about evidence for gods, waiting for any sign of research or evidence. In the meantime, there are 2 journals for intelligent design religion: Biodiversity and Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design. Biodiversity has had a grand total of 2 articles for 2012. Both articles are critiques of evolution; neither paper presented any new information on intelligent design religion. Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design hasn’t published anything since 2005. Why haven’t we seen any research papers from intelligent design religion advocates? They don’t need any invitations to present papers. They have their own journals and they’re not publishing anything. Why aren’t they presenting any new research? The answer is easy…there isn’t any.
And this frustrates you that these articles are not in your favorite journals? Who does ID concern you?
Here are some after perusal of peer-reviewed journals:
Bergman, J. (2010). Evolution and irreducible complexity. Journal Of Interdisciplinary Studies, 22(1/2), 89-114.
Wells, J. (2010). Darwin’s straw God argument. Journal Of Interdisciplinary Studies, 22(1/2), 67-88.
Your “peer-reviewed” journal (you wrote “journals,” a typo, I assume) is a Christian organ, not a scientific journal.
So what? The other journal article is not. Does that change the facts? Should we disregard the Darwinian sources in Darwinian journals?
If you can show that I’m frustrated, please do so. ID religion doesn’t concern me, as ID advocates such as yourself cannot demonstrate that ID is nothing but religion, trying to masquerade as science. The journals I mentioned are ID journals, which are demostrated to be sterile of content, just like ID. Instead of bearing false witness against me, please demonstrate how ID has any credibility as a science. I’ll wait.
You want me to prove a double narrative, “cannot demonstrate that ID is nothing but religion”. You can address the evidence above. The fact that you do not prove that your opinions are baseless.
Why does this concern you? [Edited typos.] What are you really stressed about that you think this is an appropriate response?
I’ve read the Darwinian journals and they are dry of any evidence. There is not even a little.
“Why does ID concern you?”
“…your opinions are baseless.” [Edited typos. - SS]
You make spelling and grammatical errors too Scott. You’re far from perfect. The fact that you can’t demonstrate that ID is anything but religion speaks volumes about what you know on that subject too.
“When will the Darwinists invite the Creationists to even present a paper at an academic conference? Why not discredit Intelligent Design if it were not true?” These are the questions you asked. I answered them. ID has their own journals, and don’t publish anything, because they don’t have any evidence to back up their assertions. All they have to do is submit a paper with their findings.
It really doesn’t matter if you don’t accept evolution. What matters is what you think we should be learning. What should we be teaching in schools instead of the theory of evolution? It can’t be ID; ID is religion, masquerading as science. It can’t be creationism; creationism is religion, masquerading as science. Both matters proven in a court of law and a matter of public record.
Again, if you can demonstrate that I’m frustrated or stressed on these matters feel free to do so. Your attempts to weasel out of answering questions on your own website, and as Patrick Vanderpool has demonstrated, your apparent vitriol against Catholics, are far from the teachings of the god you claim to worship.
As for ID being religious, consider its flaw to a Creationist like myself. For example, you must know the theory proposing that aliens designed, helped design, or remodel life on earth whether by evolution, etc. Creationists have noted the words of the atheist, Fred Hoyle, for supporting ID, and yet we realize that he is an evolutionist among many who support this growing theory of alien design. Therefore, ID is not religious, and cannot be because Hoyle is not religious. Deists believe in ID and are not religious. ID does not institute “an establishment of religion”. If you really want to get into theology, consider that angels are “aliens from another dimension”, and then carry this theory of aliens unto them being made of light. Take that and throw in a little Stoic worship of virtue, and I think you have the development of the religion of evolution. Evolution walks in religion without its common verbiage. Darwinian priests, “scientists”, offer services to the creation such as man via humanism in their institutes and universities, “seminaries”, and “museum” temples telling people that they all created the blessings of technology. The parallel ironies are funny. It is amazing how Darwinism mirrors paganism, but wait that is supposed to be us.
You’re not going to address this? Are you?
I will. The primary problem with ID is foundational. It is an argument from incredulity. The IDist says “D— [edited], that looks complicated. Must not have evolved” and inquiry stops there. That isn’t science. It is a surrender. It doesn’t matter who likes ID or who doesn’t… it isn’t science.
The pat and foolish claim that science is actually religion is tired. Please stop. You are making the all to common error of the theist. You assume that since you believe things on faith that everyone must also do so. That isn’t the case.
“You assume that since you believe things on faith that everyone must also do so.”
- No. – You’re presuming.
Listen to your own words. If you look at something complicated or not, you shouldn’t conclude evolution or design either way by that initial scientific observation alone. Rather let us begin with the laws and the standard of evidence, evolution does not do this.
This will be good for a laugh…
Creationist: I see a bacterial flagellum! Wow, that’s complicated and has to have all it’s parts! It can’t have evolved!
Science: Umm… type 3 secretory aparatus? It totally evolved. Here’s how…
Creationist: Look at the clotting cascade! It is so very complicated it MUST have been created by some creator I don’t name bacuase I am engaging in a dumb legal manuever to try and get my religion in schoools!
Science: I didn’t get to finish, but if you consider the dolphins clotting proces…
Creationist: The eye! The eye dammit! It is confusing to me! GODDIDIT!
Science: Screw this. You’re an ignorant fanatic. I’m going back to work.
Creationist: I win! Science knows I am right!
Seriously though, all of Behe’s (and his witless followers) examples of irreducable complexity have been shown not to be. They simply don’t exist. Time and again, ID fanatics are shown evidence that one of their pet “IR” structures has explanable evolution and yet they keep citing it. Don’t ask for refrences on that… you don’t want that.
So, in studying a plane in flight, should we think, “OK, I know this could be the air supporting this body in keeping with the science of aerodynamics. Hey! Wait! Maybe it’s drifting on the aether! Lets give that idea a look!” That’s why we don’t consider ID. It is illogical (stemming entirely as it does from from argumant from ignorance) and unscientific (it has produced no testable hypothesis and has no predictive value, just for starters).
Again, you know you have no valid response so you don’t respond. Coward.
I hear you saying that you are frustrated with ID, because of education? How do you think your comments here or before anyone else will make you feel better? Do you know what I believe about education? Or are you again presuming in prejudice as you think that I am vitriol toward Catholicism when you do not consider Patrick who opposes us with reviling slander and whose hierarchy once burned us at the stake?
Regarding education in the schools, I think that both evolution, Creation, ID, and all these concepts should be taught in the schools as theories, and since evolution is the most widely accepted and then Creation, evolution should be the most noted. Also, Pasteur and Newton must still be noted for being Creationists and thus supporters of Intelligent Design. I find this fair within the government schools. Also, if the majority within the school or county are Christians, let the local government or even better the parents of the students decide to permit open prayer and how. Note that I cannot always personally consent to the prayers of faiths either, but I respect their right. The first amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. Only the dumb and conceited would interpret “an establishment of religion” to mean religion can have a place in schools, but rather this is about a specific institution of religion. Why not just remove all the students who are religious and have religiously originated names? Religion can be noted and prayer can be included in school, but no organization, denomination, or church gets any preference. That must include evolution. Add to all of this government overreach that parents should decide their children’s education, discipline, and religious upbringing. This is our freedom of religion whether 1st amendment or by faith in scripture that teaches us to follow God before government. If you don’t give this right to the parents, Christians will teach their children anyway (Eph. 6:1ff), and we believe that they should be even more taught their convictions of faith and morality daily than math and grammar. Or is a numeric understanding greater than the virtue supporting human rights? Do you think parents should be less involved in teaching their children and the government should decide what to teach our children and even force parents too teach them things contrary to their own convictions. Parents should choose the schools being religiously affiliated or not whether agnostic, Muslims, Christian, Jews, Catholics, Protestants, etc. Where there is a need for a religious school the parents should be able to organize one and be supported? The government should not tax parents to pay for public education when they follow their convictions and send their children to a religiously affiliated school. The government can decide for themselves whether they want to support such a school or not, but either don’t tax the Christians, Muslims, and Jews to teach contrary to their beliefs in government schools, or support the parents’ rights to choose their own education by tax credit, voucher, etc. My faith is that the just wrath of God will come upon anyone who forces my children to learn something contrary to the Truth. Yes, that would include their parents and preachers (Jas. 3:1).
Lastly, stop your hypocrisy by saying that I am dodging questions when you have not answered one of my questions in comment or any of the positions in the article above. Yet, I have not avoided one of your points. Certainly if I have, you would be able to note that. I am still waiting on a skeptic to provide 2 or 3 of your strongest cases for evolution. No need for anymore than that. Those 2 or 3 should stand alone, and if those strongest arguments fall, you really have nothing to stand on. If you do not respond to this, don’t expect me to go along or permit all your thoughts here.
It takes a whole lot of faith to believe life in all its complexity originated by accident. I intellectually accepted evolution until medical school. When I studied immunology, the complexity of it blew my mind and I had to believe their was a Power organizing this amazing system. (Macrophages who present the foreign material to other cells who manufacture antibodies to defeat the invader…and these cells can remember the invader years later to present an immune response…)
The human body is amazingly designed. Thank you for your insight and realization, and thank you for your positive comments
The human body is not amazingly designed. Look at the placement of the optic nerve, a poor design that is easily explanable by evolution. The same is true of the oxygenation system of the heart. Birth defects happen because of identifiable genetic errors. Yet you think an omnipotent deity designed them.
You are assuming that our bodies, if designed, would be designed perfectly or perfectly according to your standard. What if we were made to be vulnerable for the betterment of virtue and love?
And you are assuming they wouldn’t be. Isn’t it funny that they look exactly as we would expect them too, given naturalistic evolution? It’s also odd that you have to come up with tortured logic like that to explain your divine error.
Ok Mr. Smarty Pants: let’s see how your design works.
The human body is not amazingly designed. We must have vitamin C in our diets or we die of scurvy, a horrible, painful death. Around two million sailors died of scurvy before the preventative measures were discovered. Ships’ dogs didn’t get scurvy. They have a working gene which synthesizes vitamin C. Humans have a broken copy of the same gene. Tragic.
You couldn’t figure out how nature did it, therefore it’s magic? This is called an argument from incredulity.
I did not use the word magic. You did.
#10- Bizarre non-sequiter. Hitler believed he needed to breath oxygen to live. So what?
#9- Have you ever wondered why potholes in the road are precisely contoured to fit the shape of the water that fills them? And we have in fact discovered several planets within habitable zones. Read up a little more.
#8- Only Piltdown Man was an actual hoax, and it was debunked by evolutionary biologists, not creationists. Would you like to try and count up all the creationist hoaxers who claim to have found Noah’s Ark, or the location of Eden, or a piece of the One True Cross?
#7- Irreducible complexity has long since been debunked. It rests on the mistaken assumption that evolution can only progress via a step by step addition of “parts,” while ignoring well understood mechanisms of evolution such as scaffolding and co-option.
#6- Evolution does not say DNA formed all at once. Creationism is the one that claims things formed all at once.
#5- Simply looking up carbon 14 on wikipedia is enough to debunk this one. Try a little harder.
#4- The Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is a theory in biology. The Big Bang is a theory in physics. They are not even the same discipline. And physicsts don’t say the Big Bang was caused by nothing.
#3 Evolution doesn’t even technically deal with the origin of life, but leaving that aside, the Law of Biogenesis states that complex organisms do not form spontaneously, But once again, evolution does not assert this, creationism does.
#2 Non-sequiter. Also, Darwin was a man of his time. He was racist and sexist by our standards, but less so than most people of his day. And even then it’s still a non-sequiter. It wouldn’t matter if Darwin was a Satan-worshipping cannibal. Scientific theories are judged solely on how well they map to the data, not on the character of their originators.
#1- Non-sequiter.
There. 10 tries, 10 fails. Got anything else?
“It takes a whole lot of faith to believe life in all its complexity originated by accident.”
It takes a whole lot of dishonesty to think that’s what science teaches about the origin of life or the evolution of life
My bad. I thought evolutionists postulated there was no intentional design to life forms. Please correct my view.
You can start by not conflating “no intentional design” with “by accident.”
10. This is no argument against the fact and science of evolution. Who the first observers of a verifiable fact are is irrelevant to it being a verifiable fact.
9. Several planets within the theoretical “Habitable Zone” have been found. You are simply wrong. A Google search will show you that. The idea that conditions existed for life, thus some deity must have planned it because we are alive is circular reasoning and thus false.
8. All of the errors or deliberate hoaxes in the history of science (not just evolution) have been found and publicized by scientist. As far as Haeckel’s embryo’s go, that is simply a creationist lie (one of sadly far too many). No modern textbooks use them. You are making the positive assertion that they do. Present some.
7. Irreducible complexity is a fallacy. It is simply an argument from ignorance. Upon looking at a structure, a given person says “I don’t know how this could have evolved. It must not have.” That is a classic error in thinking.
6. DNA is not a code. It is information. This is an important distinction that clearly escapes you.
5. You seem to not understand the concept of half life. Start with 100. Halve it, you get 50. Halve it again and you get 25. Now, tell me how many times you must halve it for it to become zero. Get that right and you see why you are wring here.
4. There is no such thing as a law of cause and effect. You can say it’s indisputable all you want. It doesn’t make it so. There is even am epigrammatic way to express the error, “Post ergo Propter Hoc. Look that up too.
3. Again, there is no such thing as a law of biogenesis. You need to take a look at the definition of “theory”. The blanket claim that “ No life has ever evolved from nothing” is an unsupported assertion. Care to prove it?
2. Constant virtue do not exist. There are deeply ingrained, evolved traits of altruism and empathy, easily explainable in a group living animal. Darwin’s cultural racism has no bearing on the validity of his basic idea. Are you unaware that people can be wrong about one thing and right about another? You, for example, are likely right about what your name is, yet you are deeply wrong about all ten items on this list.
1. There is no verification of the existence of Christ. No contemporary records mention him. Events said to occur in the gospels are mentioned no where else. All sources referring to him are form much later periods. Again, you are simply wrong.
It is amusing to see the hypocrisy rife in lists like this. You mention misconceptions you have about science and give erroneous pseudo-scientific reasons they can’t be true. Then, you make false assertions based on your personal belief, supported by no evidence, and think they have some validity.
“5. You seem to not understand the concept of half life. Start with 100. Halve it, you get 50. Halve it again and you get 25. Now, tell me how many times you must halve it for it to become zero. Get that right and you see why you are wrong here.”
A better analogy- take a radio station, broadcasting at 100 watts. Turn on the radio to listen to it at full volume. Now turn down the power of the radio station to 50 watts, then 25 watts, etc., halving the power every minutes. At what point do you hear silence on the radio?
Never, of course. Even when the radio station is broadcasting at imperceptible levels of microwatts, there is still static making noise on the radio. In the first few minutes, you can judge the power of the radio station by the strength of the signal. When it’s overwhelmed by the static, it’s not.
Thank you Nitric. There can never be too much clarification.
Your response is full of assertions as you read into my points and do not understand the very words that I wrote. For instance, #9 notes all the conditions necessary for a habitable planet and not just being in the habitable zone. Also, #10 was presenting not philosophers, but the mythologies of Babylonian origin of gods unto the Egyptians and Greeks in which evolution and cavemen are presented.
As for #1, are you not aware of Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, etc.? Add to this the multitudes of converts to Christianity throughout the world in the 1st c. by the evidence of the Christian scriptures and Jesus’ words were to prove Him to be the Messiah. You don’t have to be a primary source to record primary sources or to hear their records passed on to others. Yet, the Christian scriptures are written by primary sources with reference to primary sources. Why would the generation, as you may propose, have written these scriptures and invent evidence for which the previous overlapping generation would have rejected? You don’t like Christianity, because it is simply contrary to your worldview and thus you do not really consider the evidence. As once being a skeptic or simply being an honest inquirer and believer, I cannot so perceive proof this way.
In you reply to my comments on #10. It doesn’t matter what you were pointing out. A good idea is still a good idea. Don’t dodge.
As regards to #9, I will admit to reading that one quickly. I can only take so much misconception before I choke on it. It is circular to assume that since we are alive, conditions must have been created to allow that. You are again assuming the outcome and fitting your “facts” to it.
As to #1, I am aware of them all. You are simply wrong. The gospels were written later by listening to folklore, with three of them simply being recapitulations of the first. There were no primary sources there. In the others there are references to the followers of someone called christ, and the followers clearly existed, but no reference to the man himself. There is always good old Josephus, but everyone but fanatics knows that was a later forgery. Go into an inquiry assuming the outcome you will generally reach that outcome, but you won,t be right.
You should be careful about claiming what I understand and don’t. I’ve heard your weak, fallacious arguments often enough. I understand them.
I dislike christianity because of it’s followers. They are a contemptous, self-righteous lot. Many of them feel they should get to illeagely use my tax money to support their mythology. It breeds hatred while piously and falsely claiming to be about love. It’s moderate members, the beliefs and actions of whom are entirely acceptable, demand “tolerance” and evil gets to hide behind their skirts. Your faith is guilty of much, admits to little, and demands that it be taken seriously. The biggest reason I don’t like it is that people like you obstinately and foolishly deny the truth and try to force your ideas on children by getting your lies in science classrooms.
You also need to consider examining the evidence without your divine presupposition. I doubt you can, you’re pretty far gone into fanaticism, but you might be able to save yourself. Give it a try.
By the way, since you failed to address numbers 2,3,4,5,6,7, and 8, I will assume you have understood and accepted the fact ofyour errors. That’s a good start
#10 is irrelevant. The idea that person X (whom I don’t like) came up with idea Z, and therefore idea Z is wrong is known as “poisoning the well”. The ancient Greeks and Egyptians may have been pagans, but they did come up with many other ideas that are still accepted *because they are true*. Geometry still works, despite the fact that Euclid was a pagan. The alphabet still works, despite being based on Greek and Roman systems of writing.
#3 and 9 have nothing to do with Darwin’s theory of evolution. Abiogenesis is a separate problem from the speciation of life into new forms. Abiogenesis will not occur under ordinary conditions for a number of reasons (for one thing, there’s always something alive that can come up and devour the molecules that one is hoping will form into life), but the conditions of early earth were far from ordinary. Other planets with life on them have not been found, but planets are excruciatingly difficult to find (apart from the ones in our own solar system). Many of the ones that have been found could very well harbour life; life on a planet is even harder to detect than the planet itself.
#8 is laughable. Piltdown Man was a hoax, and it was exposed as a hoax by scientists. It was never used as a basis for evolution. Nebraska man was an error, corrected by scientists. Cro-magnon and Neanderthals aren’t hoaxes. The idea that the embryo goes through intermediate stages of evolution during gestation is not supported by evolution, and is not presented in any biology textbook that I’ve ever seen (except to dismiss the idea).
#5 presents a simplification of carbon-14 dating. The vast majority of carbon-14 in an organic body comes from the atmosphere, and ceases to be collected when the organism dies. There are other sources for carbon-14, such as radiation from uranium and other heavy elements affecting the nitrogen and carbon in fossil fuel sources. This is small enough to be ignored when the sample is less than 80 000 years old; it becomes the major source of carbon-14 in older samples. It also simply does not work for many oceanic species (their carbon does not come from the atmosphere, but has been recycled from other organisms in the ocean for thousands of years).
#2 is wrong. Virtues are virtues because they have been decided upon by society as beneficial for society. Virtues change as a society matures- we no longer accept slavery, polygamy, or the conquest of neighboring tribes. We do not stone adulterers or disobedient children. These are things that are supported by the Bible; we’ve outgrown them.
#10 – Yet, the Pagans appear to be the originators of evolution not science. If you would have read the source, you would that this was not geometry or any useful philosophy, but rather embedded in mythology.
#3, 9 – Thank you for your affirmation of the Law of Biogenesis. Sure there are a few other planets in the habitable zone, but what about the rest of the conditions necessary mentioned above. You assume a lot about unknown planets when cannot create life from nothing here. What about evolution is proved? Nothing.
#8 – Thank you again for your affirmation. Thank your associates as well.
#5 – Thank you for the summary and confirmation. Recycled or “polluted” 14C proves that such dating is not reliable.
#2 – No ethics are decided by a society. Civil laws are basic levels of ethics and, or morality necessary for civil living.
You also don’t know the Bible that you so confidently oppose and you are not familiar enough with its original languages either to study what you have quoted to you. Polygamy is not supported, but permitted for a reason that you do not or may not be able to understand. It is condemned by Jesus. The common definition of slavery is condemned in the Bible. See my article about Biblical slavery, which is slavery only for criminals. Do we force our incarcerated criminals to work today? Those in debt served as indentured servants being paid and trained in their manager’s profession. The word mistranslated “slave” is better translated servant for now rather than 400 year old King James English hangovers. A Biblical servant could any servant including an employee, an indentured servant, or a bond-servant. With a little unbiased study, you can figure out the rest.
Rev. Shifferd, are you being deliberately obtuse regarding #5? It is known by science that carbon-14 dating is not reliable for certain things such as marine organisms or extremely ancient things (such as petroleum). This fact does not disprove carbon-14 dating for situations when it is properly used.
It also appears you are being deliberately obtuse regarding #8. Yes, there have been scientific hoaxes and scientific mistakes in biology. This is true in every field. In my field of physics, there has been Jan Hendrik Shon, cold fusion, incorrect neutrino speeds, etc. Yet the entire field of physics is not discredited by the mistakes and fraud of a few. Science is self-correcting.
I’m not a reverend only God is. I am also not a pastor.
14C is really not reliable any time when it can be polluted.
There is a big difference between a fraudulent hoax derived from prejudice and a mistake or error. Then on top of this, promoting the frauds and hoaxes now in museums, etc.
You didn’t address either of my points.
You went from the accepted fact that carbon-14 dating is not reliable under certain conditions to the conclusion that it is always unreliable. What is your proof that it is always unreliable?
There have been “fraudulent hoaxes derived from prejudice” (Jan Hedrik Shon, cold fusion, Piltdown man, for example) and simple errors from the well meaning (neutrino speed errors, Nebraska man, for example) in EVERY scientific field. When these hoaxes and error are found, they are no longer taught or put in museums. Which frauds are you referring to when you say there are still some in museums?
Petro is not millions of years old as already cited. Yet, why then is it called a “fossil fuel” when it cannot be dated without prejudice?
Carbon dating is not the only way we have to determine the age of things, kiddo. For example: the Oklo formation is at least a billion and a half years old, and it’s older than oil.
How do we know that? Because there are more isotopes than C-14. And we can measure them, and their decay rates, pretty well. If we couldn’t, there would have been neither the Hiroshima nor Nagasaki events. Not sure whether that’s a good thing, but there it is. This world of ours is old. Four and a half billion years old. Oil is from long, long ago. Millions of years long ago. The ancient pagans have nothing to do with it. I’ve checked.
That’s true about there being more forms of dating. You just have to filter the right dating method through your worldview first and thereby choose to date something to thousands of years or to the millions.
OK, you lost me at “worldview”. I’m pretty sure there’s just the world, and we’re stuck in it. Not really sure how to “filter” things through the world, unless you’re positing some sort of parallel world business.
Ah. Well, in reply to your reply, I feel I should note that the first “scientist” in the Western world (Can’t speak to Asia, alas) was Thales of Miletus. Hesiod was not, despite what you might think, in any way a controlling influence on Hellenic thought. I mean, seriously. Aristotle was all kinds of wrong, but he was trying to do everything at once, so we should probably cut him some slack. Archimedes invented the differential calculus in ~300 BCE! How cool is that? Very cool, that’s how cool it is.
We are imperfect creatures — children, even — making our way through the vast darkness that is our universe. But we can climb so high! We can send men to the Moon; we can send probes beyond the Solar system; we can put tin dogs on the surface of Mars.
And you. You say that evolution is false. This claim is ridiculous on its face; evolution is the most strongly supported principle of biology (again: Aristotle did it first. Oops, pagans.) I know that you probably won’t pay attention to this, but still: You can be better. Be the best humanity can become. It’s simple, just two steps: 1: Be kind to your fellow humans. 2: Keep an open mind about this universe we live in. It’s huge and mad and sometimes, there are miracles.
Already addressed in previous comment.
Was Thales a pagan? Was he a scientist? If both of those are true (Hint: yes) then your claim that the pagans invented evolution but not science is false. Of course, he wasn’t a very good scientist, but hey, we’ve got to start somewhere.
And to forestall your next probable objection, I am perfectly capable of reading the Bible in its original language. Well, the New Testament, anyway. I’m rubbish at languages that go backwards. And don’t have vowels. Seriously, what’s the deal there?
Diodorus Siculus wrote about the myths of the Greek, Babylonians, and Egyptians, and this is the context of their evolution, which is mythology not philosophy.
Um. No. Evolution (according to those you call Darwinians) was not described by any of the ancients. Because, and I mean to put this as gently as possible, none of the ancients had any idea what you’re talking about. If you want to contest the creation myths of the ancients, sign me up! If you want to say that evolution is not happening because of those myths, well, that’s where I get off the (metaphorical) bus. Sidenote: I hope it’s a metaphorical bus, as the last time I was a passenger on an actual bus, I felt like I was swimming in gum.
Also, you really ought to leave philosophy to those competent. Note: This category does not include you.
No. Again, you are not reading to understand, but to twist. The pagan mythology describing evolution shows a much earlier origin of evolution within mythology and that its origins are not in science.
Please cite where pagan mythology describes hereditable variation acted on by natural selection.
“Wait. That’s adaptation “heritable [edited] variation acted on by natural selection”. Evolution proposes that one animal genetically drifts into another.”
Wait. You think adaptation isn’t part of evolution? You literally have no idea what you are talking about. I assume you aren’t going to let my first comment out of moderation?
Your comment falls on its own.
I did exactly what you claim people on here arent doing. I went through your points one by one and explained why each one was wrong. If you think it falls at least have the guts to address it, after all, you wanted your own points addressed. I notice you also fail to address my point here. Do you actually believe that adaptation isn’t part of evolution?
Let us suppose, for the moment, that you are correct. (You really aren’t.) How, precisely, does this devalue the work of (a recent example) Lenski et. al? More generally: how is it the case that an idea’s origin in mythology (BTW, you’re misusing “pagan”; you should really re-read your Suetonius) makes that idea ineligible for scientific refinement?
“But, shouldn’t Creation and the God of the Bible get the same consideration?”
The only consideration is how well theories map to data. Evolution maps well. Creationism does not. End of story.
Boo,
Wait. That’s adaptation “heritable [edited] variation acted on by natural selection”. Evolution proposes that one animal genetically drifts into another.
It doesn’t. But, shouldn’t Creation and the God of the Bible get the same consideration? Truth is seen more than just in the scientific method, but also in the records of observers (eyewitnesses), who see these events that may be rare.
As an honest observer and inquirer, God and Jesus are no more initially considered mythological than evolution. Number 10′s point is that evolution is not scientific in origin.
Pagan: “one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion, as the ancient Romans and Greeks. Synonyms: polytheist” (Dictionary.com, 18 Dec. 2012).