Why Darwinism isn't true.
-
Darwinism and the theory of evolution
Why it is so widely accepted in modern times
Darwinism is considerably a huge part of a person’s everyday life, whether we are studying or working. We can see the evidence of it in what we watch, hear and see in the world around us. But imagine what was life like before 1859, before the whole idea of evolution and darwinism was brought about by the man himself. The world was still the same, people were still people, scientist were still scientists, animals were still animals. Why would any commoner believe in it? When there were in a sense, ‘better’ and ‘proven’ ways of why the earth was created and how man came to be. In the next 150 years, more and more scientist began to believe in darwinism. Scientists, of course are of higher intellect and are the ‘equivalent of church leaders’ in the atheist society. Because Scientists are at such a high position in society, and because they are pretty neutral against all religions, they have the most exposure to the media, have the most books and are constantly writing in newspapers, they are less criticized and their works and understandings are more widely accepted among free thinkers. Most free thinkers think that there is no such thing as god but instead everything relies on chance and nature, which points to darwinism and the theory of evolution. But if most free thinkers think that darwinism is not a religion, then they are wrong. The definition of religion in www.wikipedia.org is “A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe”. Now, think to yourself, is darwinism a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe? Of course it is! Now, what sets darwinism or rather degrades darwinism apart from the rest of the religions, is that it was inspired by a 100% human man! Charles Darwin himself! So if Charles darwin created darwinism, does that make him God? Or rather does that make him a person who has seen everything happening from the start and till the end? Did he witness the first cell growing into something 1 billion times bigger than it? Of course he did not. What Charles Darwin did was basically draw conclusions from things he saw around him, which is the reason why there is so much evidence for his theory. But again, Charles Darwin is still a human after all, and a human’s understanding of the world around him is only limited to a certain amount. For me, it’s harder to believe in a fellow person who has that certain amount of knowledge and power instead of a celestial being who has infinite amount of knowledge and power.
Coming back to my topic, the main reason why darwinism is so widely accepted in the world, is because it is endorsed by most scientists. Many people who have less intellect capability than scientists would probably think “since they are smarter than me, then they are probably right and i should believe in whatever they believe in”. But the main reason why darwinism is so widely accepted by scientists around, is because Charles darwin was practically one of them. Average scientists would look up to the better scientists and say “these people are smarter and more experienced than me, therefore they are correct”.
Evidence against Darwinism
Most believe in Darwinism simply because it is much easier to comprehend and understand it. But, in reality, these people are lazy and just want to lay back and say “this is where i come from, but since it is such, it does not affect me presently and i should go on living life just as i did”. Darwinism is basically believes that “Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species—perhaps a self-replicating molecule—that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection.” Now what this means is that it took 3.5 billion years (in other words: a very very very long time) for a single species to branch out into millions and millions of species, and currently the leader of it all are humans. So the whole basis of darwinism and the evolution theory is that things CHANGE over a long long PERIOD OF TIME through a course of ‘natural selection’. This is basically the assumption that time allows for change through natural selection. If you take out time out of this equation, there would not be change and no natural selection. How Charles Darwin brought up this approximate time of 3.5 billion years was by looking at fossil remains deeper and deeper into ground and examining them for age and therefore finding at what time would these fossils have been still alive and kicking. How he based this time was by the basic explanation that for things to be fossilised, it would take time and tremendous pressure to prevent decomposition. So if time was again taken out of this equation, Darwin’s theory of evolution would be completely wrong. Simply because, if things did not take alot of time to fossilise, then Darwin’s approximate time of 3.5 billion years would be wrong and the whole length of time would be shortened alot, and that would mean there could not have been enough time for evolution to occur. That basic explanation that the only way to fossilise something was by time and tremendous pressure was accepted during Darwin’s time, but is something that now is considered wrong. For example, a cat or dog can be fossilised in 2 or 3 years as long as there is a huge amount of pressure and the right conditions, with the exception of time. This link shows how it’s possible:http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/Articles/Fossilization.htm. Therefore, Darwinism is false. This proves that as new discoveries are made, and new theories are brought up, old theories and beliefs have to be removed from the ‘scientific library’, and evolution and Darwinism are one of them. For more information, please read: http://www.discovery.org/a/10661
-
wall of text..
btw.. i guess you're immune to scientific evidence huh?
-
I personally wouldnt say that its totally not true.
This comment betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the nature of modern science.
-
Evolution does have many loopholes, missing links... the scientific evidence seems to point more at creationism, but I have given up on my faith in creationism, and neither do I believe in evolution. Lost now.
-
to the bear: So what if it's a wall of text? if you truly wanted to understand what i was saying, then u would want to read on. I don't post for the sake of posting, i post because i want to hear the opinions of people who are willing to read and understand.
to larryteo: Why have u given up your faith! Don't you know it's very dangerous to know and not believe?!!
-
Well, u gotta believe that both.. explains .. like how Science n Religion especially the Bible if not taken figuratively, expalains it all.
We are still at our infancy in understanding the cosmos. Ur faith cant be THAT weak.
For instance,
Both Copernicus and Galileo considered themselves to be Christians, yet they knew that their beliefs conflicted with the official teachings of the church on matters of science. Almost everyone today, Christian and non-Christian alike, accepts the scientific validity of the theories of Copernicus and Galileo . Biblical passages that at one time were interpreted as proving that the earth was stationary*Psalms*, or that the sun revolved around th earth (i.e, it rose and set)*again in Psalms* were reinterpreted by Christians, explaining the language of the Bible as figurative rather than literal. The problem, Christians began to see, was not with science, nor with the Bible, but with improper interpretations of the Bible, for example, forcing it to be literal when it should have been taken figuratively or phenomenologically (i.e., describing events as they appear from a human perspective, like the "rising" of the sun).
But most scientists who identify themselves as Protestants also accept Darwin's theory as foundational to the modern, scientific study of biology. Other Christians continue to oppose the theory itself, some of whom also reject the idea that the earth is billions of years old. We will deal with these two subjects separately ... when i have more sit on ass time. hahaha
Evolution theory does have holes. But these holes like the fossils are the missing links. Bear in mind i am summarising it in the simplest of language and substance.
But all these leads to a concept that is called by its proponents the Intelligent Design (ID) Theory. The most basic summary of ID is that biological organisms are so complex that they cannot have developed by chance, so they must have had a designer. Although advocates of teaching ID in the public school avoid saying so, it is clear that for the vast majority of them, that designer is the God of Christianity.
So much more we dont know, i believe we cant let science or the Bible get in the way of each other, but instead, side by side.
Hope u understand what i mean till this post in all the threads recently regarding to the Bible, Science and the possibilities or miracles to the explaination of God and Christianity as a whole.
-
to thebear: i wonder who's not looking at scientific evidence? if u click the link at the bottom most of the post, it would show u how darwinism is false through scientific evidence.
-
to badzmaro, if you look at my post carefully, i am not criticizing science itself. im jst against darwinism and his explanation of how things happen by chance. which i find is not true. i am a christian and i personally feel that from genesis 1, God created man and woman, not from a single species of plant or animal or whatever, but as a special being to rule over the animals and plants. I do need believe that my ancestor is a animal or plant. sorry to say. but yes.
-
do not believ*
-
Because if your reject Darwinism theory totally, that means u reject the emergence of the field of genetics in the early 20th century, coupled with Watson and Crick's discovery of the DNA molecule in the 1950s, that confirmed Darwin's theory to an amazing degree that is now the foundation of modern biology.
Agreed that we dont literally come from plants, i am just saying that i believe that everything has its links towards God from past to present thats all.
-
Originally posted by DouglasBitMeFingerBoomz:
Darwinism and the theory of evolution
Why it is so widely accepted in modern times
Darwinism is considerably a huge part of a person’s everyday life, whether we are studying or working. We can see the evidence of it in what we watch, hear and see in the world around us. But imagine what was life like before 1859, before the whole idea of evolution and darwinism was brought about by the man himself. The world was still the same, people were still people, scientist were still scientists, animals were still animals. Why would any commoner believe in it? When there were in a sense, ‘better’ and ‘proven’ ways of why the earth was created and how man came to be. In the next 150 years, more and more scientist began to believe in darwinism. Scientists, of course are of higher intellect and are the ‘equivalent of church leaders’ in the atheist society. Because Scientists are at such a high position in society, and because they are pretty neutral against all religions, they have the most exposure to the media, have the most books and are constantly writing in newspapers, they are less criticized and their works and understandings are more widely accepted among free thinkers. Most free thinkers think that there is no such thing as god but instead everything relies on chance and nature, which points to darwinism and the theory of evolution. But if most free thinkers think that darwinism is not a religion, then they are wrong. The definition of religion in www.wikipedia.org is “A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe”. Now, think to yourself, is darwinism a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe? Of course it is! Now, what sets darwinism or rather degrades darwinism apart from the rest of the religions, is that it was inspired by a 100% human man! Charles Darwin himself! So if Charles darwin created darwinism, does that make him God? Or rather does that make him a person who has seen everything happening from the start and till the end? Did he witness the first cell growing into something 1 billion times bigger than it? Of course he did not. What Charles Darwin did was basically draw conclusions from things he saw around him, which is the reason why there is so much evidence for his theory. But again, Charles Darwin is still a human after all, and a human’s understanding of the world around him is only limited to a certain amount. For me, it’s harder to believe in a fellow person who has that certain amount of knowledge and power instead of a celestial being who has infinite amount of knowledge and power.
Coming back to my topic, the main reason why darwinism is so widely accepted in the world, is because it is endorsed by most scientists. Many people who have less intellect capability than scientists would probably think “since they are smarter than me, then they are probably right and i should believe in whatever they believe in”. But the main reason why darwinism is so widely accepted by scientists around, is because Charles darwin was practically one of them. Average scientists would look up to the better scientists and say “these people are smarter and more experienced than me, therefore they are correct”.
Evidence against Darwinism
Most believe in Darwinism simply because it is much easier to comprehend and understand it. But, in reality, these people are lazy and just want to lay back and say “this is where i come from, but since it is such, it does not affect me presently and i should go on living life just as i did”. Darwinism is basically believes that “Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species—perhaps a self-replicating molecule—that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection.” Now what this means is that it took 3.5 billion years (in other words: a very very very long time) for a single species to branch out into millions and millions of species, and currently the leader of it all are humans. So the whole basis of darwinism and the evolution theory is that things CHANGE over a long long PERIOD OF TIME through a course of ‘natural selection’. This is basically the assumption that time allows for change through natural selection. If you take out time out of this equation, there would not be change and no natural selection. How Charles Darwin brought up this approximate time of 3.5 billion years was by looking at fossil remains deeper and deeper into ground and examining them for age and therefore finding at what time would these fossils have been still alive and kicking. How he based this time was by the basic explanation that for things to be fossilised, it would take time and tremendous pressure to prevent decomposition. So if time was again taken out of this equation, Darwin’s theory of evolution would be completely wrong. Simply because, if things did not take alot of time to fossilise, then Darwin’s approximate time of 3.5 billion years would be wrong and the whole length of time would be shortened alot, and that would mean there could not have been enough time for evolution to occur. That basic explanation that the only way to fossilise something was by time and tremendous pressure was accepted during Darwin’s time, but is something that now is considered wrong. For example, a cat or dog can be fossilised in 2 or 3 years as long as there is a huge amount of pressure and the right conditions, with the exception of time. This link shows how it’s possible:http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/Articles/Fossilization.htm. Therefore, Darwinism is false. This proves that as new discoveries are made, and new theories are brought up, old theories and beliefs have to be removed from the ‘scientific library’, and evolution and Darwinism are one of them. For more information, please read: http://www.discovery.org/a/10661
Excuse me for re-posting this:
Hi Douglas, You have raised a point in fossilization in matter of million years versus artificial fossilization using pressure and such.
May I know your view on carbon dating on the following samples:
a) fossil dug out from deep ground;
b) fossil done by artificial means.
What will the cabon dating reveal for sample (a) and (b)?
sincerely
laffin
-
to laffin. im no scientist but i'm working on it!
-
Originally posted by DouglasBitMeFingerBoomz:
to laffin. im no scientist but i'm working on it!
Hi Douglas,
I wish you success in learning science.
Also, in the future, please do not use your "artificial fossil argument" to invalidate Darwinism, especially to people who studied science. You get ridiculed for using lop-sided argument.
sincerely
laffin
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Well, u gotta believe that both.. explains .. like how Science n Religion especially the Bible if not taken figuratively, expalains it all.
We are still at our infancy in understanding the cosmos. Ur faith cant be THAT weak.
For instance,
Both Copernicus and Galileo considered themselves to be Christians, yet they knew that their beliefs conflicted with the official teachings of the church on matters of science. Almost everyone today, Christian and non-Christian alike, accepts the scientific validity of the theories of Copernicus and Galileo . Biblical passages that at one time were interpreted as proving that the earth was stationary*Psalms*, or that the sun revolved around th earth (i.e, it rose and set)*again in Psalms* were reinterpreted by Christians, explaining the language of the Bible as figurative rather than literal. The problem, Christians began to see, was not with science, nor with the Bible, but with improper interpretations of the Bible, for example, forcing it to be literal when it should have been taken figuratively or phenomenologically (i.e., describing events as they appear from a human perspective, like the "rising" of the sun).
But most scientists who identify themselves as Protestants also accept Darwin's theory as foundational to the modern, scientific study of biology. Other Christians continue to oppose the theory itself, some of whom also reject the idea that the earth is billions of years old. We will deal with these two subjects separately ... when i have more sit on ass time. hahaha
Evolution theory does have holes. But these holes like the fossils are the missing links. Bear in mind i am summarising it in the simplest of language and substance.
But all these leads to a concept that is called by its proponents the Intelligent Design (ID) Theory. The most basic summary of ID is that biological organisms are so complex that they cannot have developed by chance, so they must have had a designer. Although advocates of teaching ID in the public school avoid saying so, it is clear that for the vast majority of them, that designer is the God of Christianity.
So much more we dont know, i believe we cant let science or the Bible get in the way of each other, but instead, side by side.
Hope u understand what i mean till this post in all the threads recently regarding to the Bible, Science and the possibilities or miracles to the explaination of God and Christianity as a whole.
What makes you so certain it is the God of christianity even when there are about 20 other religions outside who support a creator of the universe?
-
to laffin123: ty. okay.
to larryteo: well i guess its my christian faith. but as i grow older, i hope that i can be exposed to the other religions too.
-
Originally posted by Larryteo:
What makes you so certain it is the God of christianity even when there are about 20 other religions outside who support a creator of the universe?
Because non- is as comprehensive up until to-date, and as scientifically relevant. I am talking science religion, facts to supernatural phenomenen.
List me the 20 then. Since u say so.
-
to laffin: http://contenderministries.org/evolution/carbon14.php sometimes, as much as im a scientific dumbo, maybe you can take a look at that.
-
to Badzmaro: i personally feel that science and religion can come together, but only to a certain extent. and to believe that i come from a monkey and a bird came from a crocodile or whatever is crossing the line. But if u believe a little in evolution and also religion, i would like to know what u believe in evolution and what you don't
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Because non- is as comprehensive up until to-date, and as scientifically relevant. I am talking science religion, facts to supernatural phenomenen.
List me the 20 then. Since u say so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth go read it, one full list there.
-
I don't think this could stand up to scientific scrutiny
-
Originally posted by dadeadman1337:
I don't think this could stand up to scientific scrutiny
Creationism is a laughing stock to the scientific community and will always remain to be.
-
Calling atheism (in this case darwinism) a religion, is like calling bald a hair colour.
-
Originally posted by dadeadman1337:
Calling atheism (in this case darwinism) a religion, is like calling bald a hair colour.
Agree. But now since I am lost between the 2, I don't know where to go. Oh well, I have many other things to do anyway, can't be bothered with these crap.
-
Douglas must be living in lala land for all his life.
-
Originally posted by Larryteo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth go read it, one full list there.
Like i said again
As comprehensive up until to-date, and as scientifically relevant. I am talking science religion, facts to supernatural phenomenen.
So quick to decide creationism is a laughing stock.. to the scientific community eh.
Many Christian scientists including me embrace both their Christian faith and scientific theories of cosmology and evolution. That is, they accept the factual, testable aspects of these theories, but they also acknowledge a real and tangible role for God in the process.
But sadly, your mind is so closed and narrow you refuse to accept possibilities when you yourself was never 100% certain of the impossibilities that is presented to you in your own journey of life till this point.
e.g - Einstein's theory of relativity, and quantum mechanics from a theological perspective.
That science and religion are neither antagonistic nor unrelated to one another but are rather complementary.And also as discussed by leading physicists and theologians regarding the interface between science and religion and finds that the two have much to offer one another in the search for ultimate truths.
One of the most recent books on the subject is The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, by Francis Collins, leader of the Human Genome Project, the project that mapped the genes on human chromosomes.
So unless you totally disbelieve the scientists, pioneers and discoverers, and ultimately, the Bible, feel free to live in your own little world friend.
Thats all i have to say for today.