I want to say this straight up, don't be intimidating on the comments, feel free to prove my post wrong, or give your opinions or even ask questions if you like. But stay away from calling names.
Oh, if anyone would like to debate me (I got some comments on this)
Please contact me at mrtnstolk@gmail.com.
Lets make this happen!
Now before we can start, everyone has to know what religion means.
Now the word religion has atleast 9 meanings. One of those 9 meanings, means something one believes in and follows devotedly.
Now there are many meanings to the word evolution to!
One of the meaning means a variation in kind. Which is indeed scientifically proven and supported by the bible. Look, you get all kind of dogs, you get big ones, small ones, little ones, fat ones, ugly ones, wrinkled up ones etc. But in the end, its still a dog, right? Its simply a variation of a dog. Keep that in your head for a while.
Did you know, rat poison is 99.98% good food?
Only 0.02% of it is poison, but its the poison that kills them.
Its a technique that works great, mix two things together that don't belong.
In this case, evolution and science. See, they mix the variation in kinds with all the other meanings, when they give proof for evolution they always give examples of variations in kinds.
I think its safe to assume that a religion is something you believe weather you have proof or not.
Now the next definition we need to look at is science.
Allot of people I debate say,
Science isn't about knowing everything, its about giving the best possible explanation for things.No its not.
My dictionary defines science as knowledge gained through observation, testing and studying.
Then they say, the majority of opinion makes it true.
Thats not true either. They use to teach that the earth was flat, they use to teach if you are sick, take bad blood out and you get fixed, they use to teach big rocks fall faster than small rocks. This was believed by most people, but its not true.
Interesting. Keep all the above in your head.
Firstly don't post a comment on my poor knowledge on evolution, I have more than 20 books on evolution, read them all, I know evolution.
Big bang
Lets start with the big bang.
Has a big bang ever been observed, tested? No, it couldn't have, nobody was there!
The one textbook I have says a big bang happens every 70 - 100 billion years.
Now how on earth does he know that?
Is that what he knows, or is that what he thinks?
Was he there when the big bang happened?
No, he doesn't know that at all, he thinks it. He, and nobody else was there when the big bang happened. A big bang has never been observed or tested. Only in math, which by the way, according to the math, would create a black hole and not matter. So a big bang is not science, a big bang is a theory. The big bang is something you believe in. Well lets look at our definition of religion.
Gasp! Something you believe in! What could this mean?
This only means one thing. The big bang theory is part of a religion!
Lets continue shall we?
Elements
The big bang theory suggests that the big bang produced hydrogen and maby a little helium.
Well, if thats true, how did we get all the other elements?
This guy came to me and said:
A simple question of nuclear fusion which takes place in stars. This has been proven by examining the spectra of stars. I thought this was a bit of a silly question so I presume you don't understand the science behind it. If you like, I will explain and maybe find a link for something to read which may also help.
Well, no its not so simple. It can be done with fusion, yes, how did we get all the elements higher than iron? Should your answer be the heat from the stars, where did the energy for the stars come from? Where did energy in the first place come from? In any case, there is no way that stars can form, have the other elements fuse and then heat up the elements to become anything higher than iron. Study the dates on evolution and you will see what I'm talking about.
It has never been proven that any element higher than iron can be produced from helium and hydrogen. It just doesn't work! Which means its not a scientific fact, which means that's part of a religion! Which reminds me, why is it that a star has never been seen forming? It should have been seen atleast once by now.
Consider all then then you'll see, I'm right about my facts, feel free to research it for yourself.
Life from dead matter
Next is how life can come from dead matter.You know this is actually really funny! This one textbook I have says in chapter 13 I believe, the last sentence says:
Therefor we conclude that life cannot be created from dead matter.Then the chapter right after that, on evolution, it says:
However, we believe life started from dead matter.Its just hilarious to read.
This one guy came to me and said:
Of course life comes from dead matter, simply add energy.I would like to tell you thats not true, throw a bunch of junk together and give it an electric shock. Please notify me weather you got life or not. As a matter of fact, throw a frog in a blender, blend it, throw the pieces in a cup and add energy. Thats dead matter, you still think you gonna get life from the pieces of the frog?
No?
Well why not? All the pieces are there...
But if it is organized in the right way, then it has life...
Big bang is nothing more than an explosion, nothing is organized in an explosion...
It has never been proven that life can come from dead matter. Never been observed (How could it, according to evolutionists, we wern't even there yet). So what can this mean? (All you creationists say it with me now)
Life coming from dead matter is religious!
Animals producing different kind of animals
The next part after life got started, eventually different kind of animals started to appear.
Just think about it logically for a second.
What is so scientific of believing dogs and peaches are related?
Whats so scientific to believe that humans came from hydrogen and helium?
Thats not science. Thats a theory, I respect your theory, I think its dumb, but I respect it.
Now, has it ever been observed that any animal can produce an animal of a different kind?
No!
I'd like to see what kind of animal a dog and a peach can bring forth. Since they are related...
Any farmer, that works with animals, cross-breeds them can tell you, you can cross-breed them up till a point and no further. They look different, but hey they are still the same kind of animal, arn't they? So thats a variation in kind. See a variation in kind has been proved hundreds of times, changing from 1 kind to another, has not.
They teach in the textbooks fresh water fish and salt water fish probably had a common ancestor. I agree, I believe it was called...a fish. Its a different kind of fish, but hey its still a fish, isn't it?
Now the problem with the evolution theory is when discussing it, they always start where life has already been started. Pretty unfair if you ask me, but whatever. I just want to say, that's not how it works, when you are explaining your viewpoint you have to give scientific evidence for it, unless, you admit its a religion. You can't just make a statement and say its up to me to prove it wrong, oh no, its up to you to prove it, otherwise its your religion. I could make any dumb statement, watermelons are purple on the inside until the skin is damaged. Prove I'm wrong! Doesn't work like that. You can't just skip the above as most of them do. If you believe the things above that means its part of your religion, you believe it, you think it is a fact, but its not really.
So with all the information above I conclude that evolution is considered as a fact and science (Obviously the man that started that didn't know the meaning of science or religion), but its not! Anyone can try to prove me wrong. I admit my belief is a religion so why won't you admit it either? So I think evolution should be taught as a religion, not science. Because that is what evolution is. Now since evolution is a religion answer my next question, why do creationists have to pay the state to have your religion taught in our school system?
Small things that evolutionists never seem to answer. Well, thanks for reading everyone!
-Martin
scientists, including darwin, don't just make things up based on a few observations or ideas. They develop a theory, that is then tested repeatably. Their theory (like evolution), also makes many predictions of what should be true (things they have not observed, but believe WILL happen if their theory is true), if their theory is true. This theory then comes to be accepted by the scientific community when people test these predictions and find them to be true (or sometimes they are not). All of this happened with evolution, hundreds of darwin's predictions were shown to be true, things that could have turned out to be wrong, but were not. This makes evolution science. Take ONE prediction that could be made from creationism, such as the earth is only 10,000 years old, and you run into a million problems. Unless you still believe scientists are children who cant understand their data and don't know how conduct good experiments
ReplyDeleteIn the above post there is truth and lies. (I am glad you said evolution is a theory by the way). If a theory is proved, then yes it can be considered as a fact. Sure, there is proof for things stated in Darwin's book. Thats actually one of the definitions of evolution, a variation in kind. That is the only thing that has been proven, none of the other things has ever been proven.
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned something about the earth is 10 000 years old we run into millions of problems. Could you name me some? Atleast give us a chance to defend ourselves thats all I ask for everyone. Before making a statement claiming how stupid we are and give allot of things we have to read through and stuff, atleast give us a little time to defend ourselves.
"Before making a statement claiming how stupid we are"
ReplyDeleteWhere did he make a statement claiming how stupid you are?
He didn't. He said nothing that suggested or even implied it. You then turned around and accused him of it.
That says a lot about your reading comprehension.
You claim to have and read 20 books on Evolution. Judging by you inability to understand that single paragraph. I doubt you have the ability to read and understand 20 books on evolution.
You keep writing about people calling you stupid. Now you clearing show that you make claims of being called stupid, when in fact nobody called you stupid.
Whoa I think you misinterpret my sentence.
ReplyDeleteI didn't mean him, I mean other people. If you read through the comments you will noticed that I am called stupid quite often. (If it sounded like I meant him I'm sorry). So I didn't accuse him I was simply making a statement to everyone who replies, so it was not aimed at him. But now youre the one that's saying I can't understand books on evolution.
So what you are trying to say here is youre smart and everyone else is dumb. Right? Thats how I see it.
Read through it, I get called stupid allot, I got pm's, there are a few very intimidating comments, I get emails, messages from MSN, I get called stupid allot. So no, it wasn't aimed at him, it was aimed at everyone who replies to the comments. Maby it should have been in another paragraph...
Lastly (Not aimed at you) Nobody can really say I'm stupid for believing in creation, nobody knows what I know and don't know. Some people are assuming I'm stupid because I believe in creation. Which I think is discriminating.
I try not to offend anyone, but sometimes it slips out without me knowing. Sorry about the misunderstanding.
please read this and tell me some of the evidence for earth being <10,000 years old that isn't destroyed by this article. If you think the writer has his evidence wrong please dispute it.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tim-thompson.com/young-earth.html
So you agree that saltwater and freshwater fish have a common ancestor, and thats just a variation in kind because they are still a fish? Well then why cant the same be said for Humans and Chimpanzees, or Humans and Bananas for that matter. All of evolution is just a chain of variations in kind.
ReplyDelete"Now, has it ever been observed that any animal can produce an animal of a different kind?
No!
I'd like to see what kind of animal a dog and a peach can bring forth. Since they are related..."
the above statement obviously shows that you have an incredibly childish understanding of evolution, go read more books
(because obviously you took nothing from all the evolution books you claim to have read)
maybe 200 years ago creationists could be taken seriously but in the modern world you are the equivalent of the holocaust deniers.
"Well then why cant the same be said for Humans and Chimpanzees"
ReplyDeleteCan humans and chimpanzees bring forth?
If yes, then we come from chimps, if no, my point is proven. There is a huge difference between a variation in a kind and a change of kind. I know evolution is little changes over time, so that means its your job to prove it, that means you have to show me every single change of any animal as it changes to a different kind. Any animal at all.
Would you just take a second to consider what you wrote. You stated that humans and banana's are related.
What you don't seem to understand is something can under no circumstances be scientific if it cannot be observed, tested and demonstrated. Evolution can't do that. They can show us a variation in kind, but thats where it stops. Go talk to any farmer who does inbreeding, he will tell you, you can do it, but just till a point, no further.
I understand evolution, but do you know what you actually did here?
By completely ignoring the rest of the article (Life from dead matter, nothing that exploded etc.) clearly shows me that you don't have an answer to that, so thats not science, no all you do is look for a few statements and comment on that, completely ignoring the statements that make you doubt.
As for the poster above, I'll read it and I'll make a blog comment about it.
Saltwater fish and freshwater fish are different species and cannot make offspring, but you just said that you believe they had a common ancestor. How is that any different than Human and Chimpanzee.
ReplyDeleteWhat you don't seem to realize is that macroevolution, what you seem say has never has been proven, has been.
Here is a nice compilation of the overwhelming evidence for changes above the species level. i.e. a change in kind.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
You cant create new species in a couple generations, its a process that takes millions of years, so how the heck does farmer's inbreeding have ANY relevance to your argument.
I didnt comment on the rest of your article because it doesn't have to do with evolution. you seem to think that "evolution" is supposed explains the origin of life itself, obviously evolution doesn't apply if life doesn't exist.
You claim there is no evidence, but there is. Lots of it, coming from many different disciplines and many unrelated sources. Evolution has been proven to the extent that Paris is in France can be proven.
and yes Humans and bananas are related, if you took a human and line up all his ancestors, starting with his mother, then her mother, etc... and did the same with a banana (or I guess a banana tree), and you stretched far enough back you would eventually reach a common ancestor: A completely different, probably primitive aquatic form of life.
"Saltwater fish and freshwater fish are different species and cannot make offspring, but you just said that you believe they had a common ancestor."
ReplyDeleteI work with animals almost every day of my life, I have personally observed that fresh water fish can live in salt water just fine. Not immediately of course. You can try this at home, have 2 tanks one with salt water and one without. Every couple of days add some salt to the fresh water and remove some salt from the salt water. In about 6 - 8 months time (Depending on how much salt you added or removed.) throw them all in a tank with only half the salt in the original salt water tank. You will notice that both of the fish will live fine in the half salt water tank. So yes it is indeed a variation in kind, that does not support evolution at all.
"Here is a nice compilation of the overwhelming evidence for changes above the species level. i.e. a change in kind."
You know, I went to that site over and over and over, and if you give me a chance to defend myself I could explain it in a creationists point of view, that is not prove for macroevolution, I might make a topic on that later.
"I didnt comment on the rest of your article because it doesn't have to do with evolution. you seem to think that "evolution" is supposed explains the origin of life itself, obviously evolution doesn't apply if life doesn't exist."
Go read up on evolution, you will see what I mean, evolution tells us that life came from dead matter, how they don't know.
"Evolution has been proven to the extent that Paris is in France can be proven. "
Show me the proof, give me a chance to defend myself and then we talk again.
As for your last paragraph, I am to stupid to do that, would you do me the honors to show me every little ancestor, with proof of your statement up and till the first primitive form of life, if you can show me that, I will become an evolutionist.
Only some fish can live in both saltwater and freshwater.
ReplyDeleteTry gradually adding salt to a goldfish tank, and see what happens.
Not that we should be arguing about fish,
"evolution tells us that life came from dead matter"
this is a false statement, look at any definition of evolution it never mentions the origin of life itself. That is a different debate, some people would argue that god created life and then laid the foundation for evolution, the theory that life was formed by chance through a very long process is one thats accepted by science in general. This is the same with evolution, there is so much evidence supporting it that it is considered fact by the entire scientific community. Any creationist such as yourself, is really arguing against much much more than the theory of evolution, you are attacking large groups of theories/facts supported by all disciplines of science.
"As for your last paragraph, I am to stupid to do that, would you do me the honors to show me every little ancestor, with proof of your statement up and till the first primitive form of life, if you can show me that, I will become an evolutionist."
Thousands of these transitional fossils have been discovered. There are fossils that are halfway between Invertebrate and Vertebrate, Fish and Amphibian, Amphibian and Reptile, Reptile and Bird as well as Reptile/Mammal. There are fossils of Mammals who have returned to the water, such as whales who still have legs. Then of course there are countless transitional fossils leading from small mammal up to the modern human (as well as lots of other species), all supported with genetic evidence.
We have no reason to doubt evolution, there are mountains of evidence supporting it. It has been observed and documented (yes even a change in kind has been observed with microscopic life such as E. Coli). We learn more about it every day that further strengthens it, filling in the holes. If you really think its all hooblah you need to dispute the evidence. Its not enough to propose your own theories with no evidence but excerpts from scripture and your own random ideas, and claim it as an equal explanation.
Ok above, I don't really want to argue all I really want is some solid, scientific proof.
ReplyDeleteNow you mentioned a goldfish, interesting fact, keep a goldfish in a dark room for about 10 days, put some light in the room and you will find that the goldfish turned white. Just thought I'd mention this, yesterday the guy argued about it taking thousands of years to change into a white gold fish :P
Would you mind telling me how you believe life got started? Because every evolutionist says the exact same thing. "Well, it rained on rocks for millions of years..." What is your explanation for that?
Please, list evidence, the problem is evolution and creation has the same evidence, its just interpret differently. If you actually dig a little deeper into the so called "missing links" you will see thats not solid proof for evolution. Whatever, I'm working on a topic about that.
You know, you are not being fair in the last statement, you are taking the word of someone who barely passed his classes because he was drinking with his friends, you call that man a scientist, Charles Darwin. Do you know what random ideas he had?
Hey Zappy, I've read your blog, and I found it fitting that you left the option 'all you did was get my blood boiling'. Your definition of religion is so broad it can encompass more than just what is considered a religion. But your understanding of 'devout' seems to be lacking as people don't generally follow science in a religious manner. But in this case the definition of religion is irrelevant as it doesn't prove a thing.
ReplyDeleteI've written my thesis on the slow neutron capture process, so I can assure you that while the stellar nucleolus process you mentioned does not produce elements more massive than iron, it does occur in other processes.
You bash the big bang theory by claiming that since no one was around to see it (or that it hasn't been tested), it is not a valid science. You are certainly confused. It is possible to study some things that, by their very nature, can't be tested. These fields are called observational sciences. Astronomy is part of this group along with other fields like geology and epidemiology. I would love to see your reasons for ignoring the microwave background, redshift, and the formation of galaxies. Instead you explain that since it is a religion it is false.
Another thing, textbooks are often written with the average student in mind, so many are an oversimplification. Textbooks may be a good reference, but they are no means a measure of scientific consensus. In addition, they are often written by many authors, so it is conceivable that the person who wrote about spontaneous generation was not the person who wrote about abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is a quickly evolving field. To be honest, we don't know much about how life formed. It is still an incomplete puzzle, with some links in the chain still being researched. One of the most important experiments in the field is the Miller experiment, which I am sure you have heard all about.
Then you go on to talk about animals producing different animals. The first thing in the paragraph I noticed is the fact that you don't understand what a theory is. A theory is an explanation of physical phenomena, not something that has yet to be proven. Just because something has the word theory in it doesn't mean it is false. I am sure you believe in number theory.
Now you start throwing the word 'kind' everywhere. Since you clearly agree in speciation (as evident in saying that you agree that fresh water fish evolved from salt water fish), what prevents compounded changes? Where does A. gunnari fit in? Is it a fish or a tetrapod? If it is a fish, what prevents it from evolving into a tetrapod?
Evolution isn't a religion. It changes. Big theories are created, some die (see luminiferous aether), but they change. Religion still relies on 1800 year old holy books that the people that subscribe to the religion have trouble independently verifying themselves.
Hello! Thank you for your post above!
ReplyDeleteYou talk about observational sciences, while that is true, none of that was ever used to prove the big bang, or any part of evolution except the variation in kinds. As a matter of fact, allot of it supports creation, but creation isn't believed. So that means absolutely nothing. If that meant something, you have no reason not to believe in creation.
I never said since something is a religion it is false, I said since its a religion, it cannot be called science. Ask anyone that knows me, I will never ever tell people that creation is science, I will tell them its my religion, and therefore is not proven that is simply what I believe.
"I would love to see your reasons for ignoring the microwave background, redshift, and the formation of galaxies."
Actually I'm not ignoring that, I actually have allot of drafts in my posts, so I'm still working on things like that.
With your next statement I can agree, now there is something (Its not aimed at you by the way) Scientists are working very hard to create life in the labs, so far they are unsuccessful, people I debate often like to use this argument "They are working on creating life in the labs!", but even if they accomplish that, it would prove my point! It takes intelligence to create life!
Actually, I completely understand theory, and I wouldn't mind if everyone said evolution is a theory, honestly I wouldn't. Evolution is advertised as a fact, while some people say its a theory (I got allot of respect for them) other believe its a fact.
Now, I never heard of the gunnari you are talking about (something I can do research on!), but lets assume I said fish, then you said:
"If it is a fish, what prevents it from evolving into a tetrapod?"
Then I would just say, I don't know, why hasn't it evolved yet? I don't think anything is preventing it, I just think its not gonna happen. Not like I can talk much on this subject since I don't know anything about this.
But saying that, I might just aswell ask you some things. The horseshoe crab has blue blood. If evolution is true, allot more animals should have blue blood. They don't, why has the horseshoe crab evolved with blue blood, while the others havn't? I know why it has blue blood, but I am interested in knowing why so little creatures have blue blood, (unless I'm mistaken). What evolved first, The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? How long did the first survive without the other? There are many things like that, but I won't go into detail with that yet.
Question for the last paragraph, there is evidence for the bible, there are allot of things proven in the bible, why, doesn't everyone believe it, but evolution is not proved, but yet we have to believe it. Why is that?
most mollusks have the same blue blood of the horseshoe crab, which contains copper molecules instead of iron.
ReplyDeleteObviously, the plants or flowers you are referring to evolved first. They survived by means of wind pollination, or other methods that dont involve other life (Many plants still use this pollinating method today). When insects came around, they provided a more reliable method of reproducing– themselves. Natural selection followed, the plants which were most appealing to the insects were the ones that survived, until eventually, the insects began to rely on the flowers because of the nectar they provided (nectar has no purpose for the plant, its only use is to reward insects, and condition them to continue on to more flowers)
Just to make a simple point it appears you do not understand: evolution is NOT about individual animals changing over time. It is about species changing over time, as the members of that species that have genes that enable them to survive (eg better eyesight) survive and have children. Those that have genes that hinder their survival die and do not reproduce. This has been scientifically observed (older fossils would have had, in life, a worse chance of surviving than new fossils)
ReplyDeleteI understood this at the age of 11.
Also, what makes you think creationist Christianity provides a better alternative to evolution than, say, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, Hinduism or indeed the modern doctrine that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world?
ReplyDeleteYou present evolution and creationism as a very simple one or the other choice. Many Christians, in Britain at least, choose a comfortable middle ground - living their life according to the ethics of Jesus, going to church and interpreting Genesis as metaphorical.
ReplyDelete