An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

[Symmetry]

Clearly if you had carefully read the article, you would have realized that it was not his own Ph.D. that he was quoting in the article, but a bunch of others and scientist in different fields who all subscribe to the unfounded theory of evolution. Their own words convict them of the problems inherent to the unfounded theory of evolution.

And since when did it appeared to be a deception simply because he has a Ph.D.? I don't get that logic of yours? Is it now a crime to admit that you went to school and studied something and to put that title alongside your name?

"...although he clearly traded on his Ph.D for the gullible who might think that his doctorate was in a field he was discussing."

I don't have a Ph.D. but I am also quoting a whole bunch of scientist as well. Since when is that a crime? Or does that mean that I don't have the right to speak the truth about the unfounded theory of evolution?

It's no crime, it's simply misleading to quote a professional qualification if you don't have the qualification in the area you're discussing. I assume you wouldn't be ok accepting medical expertise from a doctor of sociology if they just said they were a doctor.

On a personal level, I checked out some of the quotations sourced, and they didn't pan out. Either they were clear misstatements of positions held, or simply factually inaccurate.

And yet you could not post any of those apparent discrepancies (with your explanations) that you just finish looking into, for us to evaluate on our own? =)

I honestly couldn't be bothered to. Apart from my point about the PhD, which was clearly misleading, and you haven't responded to, off the top of my head, point 7 has clearly been edited heavily, doesn't seem to represent the views of Mark Ridley, who isn't and never has been Professor of Zoology at Oxford, he's a doctor with a position as a research assistant/associate. Indeed, the full text indicates that there are several strong arguments for evolution, a point that dismisses the author's thesis that there are none.

Without the editing, of course, you might come away with a very different view:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html does a good job dismantling the innacuracies and obvious mistakes.

"Someone is getting it wrong, and it isn't Darwin; it is the creationists and the media." (page 830)

"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to special creation. The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven."

"So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy." (page 831)

"These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability of species. Other defences of the theory of evolution could be made, not the least of which is the absence of a coherent alternative. Darwin's theory is also uniquely able to account for both the presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs), in nature." (page 832)

No wonder he left out the rest, it's a demolition of his arguments, not a support of them.

[Viceroy63]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s

I believe that the above documentary best explain the position as to why Evolution is not only a closed minded topic of ignorance but why it can not happen in the first place regardless of how much time one gives the hypothetical process of evolution to occur. Simply put, the odds of life evolving in the first place are enormously staggering and completely mind blowing to say the least. And this is from a scientific perspective.

Now the odds of the majority of the people being duped into ignorance are not so complicated which probably is what gave rise to that old adage, "You can fool all of the people, some of the times..."

I realize that this thread may seem insulting and even alienating to many, but never the less it is the truth which "All of the people" simply can not see. And perhaps don't even want to see. Maybe because one may perceive shame in being wrong or maybe because the brainwashing by science into a false and unfounded theoretical belief is one's new religion which must be defended to the death. I don't know. But I do believe that anyone who watches this video with an open mind will come out of it asking deep and profound questions that an unfounded theory of evolution can not answer.

Perhaps if you had seen this video on PBS or in School when growing up, then you may think different but because I am presenting it here, it will most likely be ignored just like all the other words I wrote and posted on this thread. Rest assured that this video will in all probability, never air on PBS or be shown in a classroom full of young impressionable open minds. And regardless of that, it remains the truth that just can not be brushed aside.

Evolution could not have had happen in the first place!

[Note]
Yes; I agree that mutations do occur in nature, but never is a mutation an act of evolution. Mutations are a survival mechanism written directly into our DNA codes which explains the variety of differences in animal and Man but they are not evidence of an evolutionary process. In fact it is a known fact that Mutations actually do more harm than good. And no where is this more apparent then in our modern twenty first century where all kinds of Cancers and Diseases are just running amok. Where babies are born with all kinds of health risk or simply die in their cribs while they sleep. This is not evolution in progress but the symptoms of the damage that we are doing to ourselves at the very heart of our DNA, in our modern, post industrial and nuclear world.

[AAFitz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s

I believe that the above documentary best explain the position as to why Evolution is not only a closed minded topic of ignorance but why it can not happen in the first place regardless of how much time one gives the hypothetical process of evolution to occur. Simply put, the odds of life evolving in the first place are enormously staggering and completely mind blowing to say the least. And this is from a scientific perspective.

What then would you consider the odds of a God existing for 2000 years with no empirical evidence whatsoever, from, as you say, a scientific perspective?

Also, what are the odds, that a group of human beings could get together, and construct an entire religion based on a deity and have it be completely fiction?

These are rhetorical questions, for the most part, but by all means answer...I never get tired of your jokes.

[AAFitz]

Evolution could not have had happen in the first place!

[Note]
Yes; I agree that mutations do occur in nature, but never is a mutation an act of evolution. Mutations are a survival mechanism written directly into our DNA codes which explains the variety of differences in animal and Man but they are not evidence of an evolutionary process. In fact it is a known fact that Mutations actually do more harm than good. And no where is this more apparent then in our modern twenty first century where all kinds of Cancers and Diseases are just running amok. Where babies are born with all kinds of health risk or simply die in their cribs while they sleep. This is not evolution in progress but the symptoms of the damage that we are doing to ourselves at the very heart of our DNA, in our modern, post industrial and nuclear world.

It could have had happened! And did!

Also, tell that to the entire town of survivors of the plague, who had a genetic mutation, that protected them from infection of bacteria, and even many viruses.

[Viceroy63]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s

I believe that the above documentary best explain the position as to why Evolution is not only a closed minded topic of ignorance but why it can not happen in the first place regardless of how much time one gives the hypothetical process of evolution to occur. Simply put, the odds of life evolving in the first place are enormously staggering and completely mind blowing to say the least. And this is from a scientific perspective.

What then would you consider the odds of a God existing for 2000 years with no empirical evidence whatsoever, from, as you say, a scientific perspective?

Also, what are the odds, that a group of human beings could get together, and construct an entire religion based on a deity and have it be completely fiction?

These are rhetorical questions, for the most part, but by all means answer...I never get tired of your jokes.

Those should not be rhetorical question for they have valor and they should be taken seriously. Science after all, is a serious business of seriously observing the universe around us and learning from it through that very same "Serious Observations." To make jokes about it or not take it seriously is not science and neither is the Theory of evolution. I dare you to seriously watch the video and try and open your mind to the truth. Seriously!

"What then would you consider the odds of a God existing for 2000 years with no empirical evidence whatsoever, from, as you say, a scientific perspective?"

We, as finite humans, can never come to understand in full what it is to exist in infinity. I use the word infinity to describe not being confined to time and space. God created time and space so how can He possibly exist in those? And how can we possibly comprehend what it is like to exist in a "realm" (If we can call it a realm as opposed to simply just existing) where there is no time and space? Humans naturally believe that in order to exist it must be in our present form of confinement to this universe.

We would think that we need space and time to exist but that is only because our nature of existing is confined to time and space and so we think in this fashion. In reality we are more like fishes confined to the fish tank. But as a theory of mine, let me purpose that God is simply "Mind" or "Pure thought". A thought can exist outside of time and space and not need anything but it's intellect or intelligence in order to be. That would be a good way to describe God. He thinks, therefore He IS!

In fact when God became human in the person of Jesus he actually had to abandon his prior form of existence "as only Pure Mind," in order to invade the universe that he created. When that happen and God was born into our universe and way of existence he added to his experience of existence. As pure thought or pure mind God can do anything but he could not touch his creation. Not like we can. Now he can. Now he can experience as we can and know the universe that he created from our scientific point of view. Creation is an ever growing and changing thing for a God that needs not grow or change!

[Note]
I am not going to go into how God appeared to Jacob as a man or angels also take the form of men as that is for our benefit only. Neither God nor the angels were or are men (Except in the person of Jesus who is no longer flesh and blood but spirit). But to be able to interact with this universe as humans do, you must be a human and then you know.
-End note.

from an entirely scientific perspective all one has to do is observe the universe and witness God's mind in creation rather than to deny it. The theory of evolution is simply a way for man to create the universe without the need of a Creator. A way to deny God. In fact it makes man less then insignificant because now he is merely a cosmic accident that occurred out of a mindless universe. So the question then becomes, "How can a mindless universe create minds?" And while we are at it the next question would be, "How can lifelessness create Life?" How can plain inanimate matter, the universe, come to create us? No matter how long it takes, What would be the odds of that? And then throw the theory of evolution on top of that just for fun? Because it simply can't happen.

Watch the video and learn the answer to that one. Pretend that you are an open minded scientist in search for the truth.

[Metsfanmax]

And while we are at it the next question would be, "How can lifelessness create Life?" How can plain inanimate matter, the universe, come to create us? No matter how long it takes, What would be the odds of that? And then throw the theory of evolution on top of that just for fun? Because it simply can't happen.

Why are you predisposed to believe that? Part of being open-minded, as a scientist, is to consider all the possibilities, no matter how absurd you initially think them to be.

We wouldn't have discovered quantum mechanics if people weren't willing to think outside the box.

[Symmetry]

Another dodge from you Viceroy, I wonder if you really consider this a discussion, or more of a sermon?

[Neoteny]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s

I believe that the above documentary best explain the position as to why Evolution is not only a closed minded topic of ignorance but why it can not happen in the first place regardless of how much time one gives the hypothetical process of evolution to occur. Simply put, the odds of life evolving in the first place are enormously staggering and completely mind blowing to say the least. And this is from a scientific perspective.

What then would you consider the odds of a God existing for 2000 years with no empirical evidence whatsoever, from, as you say, a scientific perspective?

Also, what are the odds, that a group of human beings could get together, and construct an entire religion based on a deity and have it be completely fiction?

These are rhetorical questions, for the most part, but by all means answer...I never get tired of your jokes.

Those should not be rhetorical question for they have valor and they should be taken seriously. Science after all, is a serious business of seriously observing the universe around us and learning from it through that very same "Serious Observations." To make jokes about it or not take it seriously is not science and neither is the Theory of evolution. I dare you to seriously watch the video and try and open your mind to the truth. Seriously!

"What then would you consider the odds of a God existing for 2000 years with no empirical evidence whatsoever, from, as you say, a scientific perspective?"

We, as finite humans, can never come to understand in full what it is to exist in infinity. I use the word infinity to describe not being confined to time and space. God created time and space so how can He possibly exist in those? And how can we possibly comprehend what it is like to exist in a "realm" (If we can call it a realm as opposed to simply just existing) where there is no time and space? Humans naturally believe that in order to exist it must be in our present form of confinement to this universe.

We would think that we need space and time to exist but that is only because our nature of existing is confined to time and space and so we think in this fashion. In reality we are more like fishes confined to the fish tank. But as a theory of mine, let me purpose that God is simply "Mind" or "Pure thought". A thought can exist outside of time and space and not need anything but it's intellect or intelligence in order to be. That would be a good way to describe God. He thinks, therefore He IS!

In fact when God became human in the person of Jesus he actually had to abandon his prior form of existence "as only Pure Mind," in order to invade the universe that he created. When that happen and God was born into our universe and way of existence he added to his experience of existence. As pure thought or pure mind God can do anything but he could not touch his creation. Not like we can. Now he can. Now he can experience as we can and know the universe that he created from our scientific point of view. Creation is an ever growing and changing thing for a God that needs not grow or change!

[Note]
I am not going to go into how God appeared to Jacob as a man or angels also take the form of men as that is for our benefit only. Neither God nor the angels were or are men (Except in the person of Jesus who is no longer flesh and blood but spirit). But to be able to interact with this universe as humans do, you must be a human and then you know.
-End note.

from an entirely scientific perspective all one has to do is observe the universe and witness God's mind in creation rather than to deny it. The theory of evolution is simply a way for man to create the universe without the need of a Creator. A way to deny God. In fact it makes man less then insignificant because now he is merely a cosmic accident that occurred out of a mindless universe. So the question then becomes, "How can a mindless universe create minds?" And while we are at it the next question would be, "How can lifelessness create Life?" How can plain inanimate matter, the universe, come to create us? No matter how long it takes, What would be the odds of that? And then throw the theory of evolution on top of that just for fun? Because it simply can't happen.

Watch the video and learn the answer to that one. Pretend that you are an open minded scientist in search for the truth.

[PLAYER57832]

No New Species.
Charles Darwin is popularly supposed to have solved the problem of "the origin of species," in his famous 1859 book of that title. However, as the eminent Harvard biologist, Ernst Mayr, one of the nation's top evolutionists, has observed:

"Darwin never really did discuss the origin of species in his On the Origin of Species."2

Neoteny's selected readings for Viceroy Vol. 3: You obviously, and apparently neither has the author of your copypasta here, haven't read The Origin of Species. Darwin actually spent a solid chunk of the treatise discussion how natural selection (you may have heard of this) might lead to speciation. I was fortunate enough to get a free copy from groups associated with Ray Comfort during one of his propaganda efforts. It does have an introduction at the beginning written by Comfort, which leads me to question whether he ever read the book, but other than that, it's pretty nice. I suggest you read it, Viceroy. It can be a bit, er... Victorian at times, but, like with any important book, you shouldn't let that put you off.

He might have read a very misleading version printed by some anti-evolutionists around the time of the anniversary of the book that omits, several large swaths.. I believe the section to which you refered was one of them.

[PLAYER57832]

And yet you could not post any of those apparent discrepancies (with your explanations) that you just finish looking into, for us to evaluate on our own? =)

Actually, I earlier gave you links to several threads that did include more full discussions of many of your points.

The biggest problem in this debate is that while its easy for young earthers to just google and find myriads of inaccurate information, tracking down the proof of those inaccuracies and finding the real data and the evidence to refute it takes a great deal of time. Further, in many cases the real proof actually does require a real understanding of Chemistry, Biology, Physics, Geology, etc. People spend years studying to get PhDs in these subjects for good reason... they are not simple subjects. In fact, EACH of those can be subdivided into multiple subjects, and those subjects have to be subdivided themselves.

[PLAYER57832]

I believe that the above documentary best explain the position as to why Evolution is not only a closed minded topic of ignorance but why it can not happen in the first place regardless of how much time one gives the hypothetical process of evolution to occur. Simply put, the odds of life evolving in the first place are enormously staggering and completely mind blowing to say the least. And this is from a scientific perspective.

Science, really?
Where did you get those probabilities? And where are the probabilities related to any alternatives? The fact is we ARE here, no matter how improbable the occurance. Science just tries to figure out why. No one disputes that it is a very, very, very, very, very improbable occurance that humans arose... yet, "here we are!"

Now the odds of the majority of the people being duped into ignorance are not so complicated which probably is what gave rise to that old adage, "You can fool all of the people, some of the times..."

Well, simply put, compare the odds that millions of trained scientists on Earth having been duped versus the probability that you and your cronies have been duped...

Beyond that, where is your proof of this big conspiracy of falsified evidence? All you have done so far is say that anything we present is just "not real" or "created for profit". You have not actually refuted any real point on any factual grounds.

I realize that this thread may seem insulting and even alienating to many, but never the less it is the truth which "All of the people" simply can not see.

hmm.. yeah,must feel good to know you are part of the " elite few" privliaged to know these great truths... but most of us are still just waiting for you to show us what you know.

So far, mostly you show that you don't know much at all about evolution... or whole swaths of science.

And perhaps don't even want to see. Maybe because one may perceive shame in being wrong or maybe because the brainwashing by science into a false and unfounded theoretical belief is one's new religion which must be defended to the death. I don't know. But I do believe that anyone who watches this video with an open mind will come out of it asking deep and profound questions that an unfounded theory of evolution can not answer.

Perhaps if you had seen this video on PBS or in School when growing up, then you may think different but because I am presenting it here, it will most likely be ignored just like all the other words I wrote and posted on this thread. Rest assured that this video will in all probability, never air on PBS or be shown in a classroom full of young impressionable open minds. And regardless of that, it remains the truth that just can not be brushed aside.

Ignored? Funny... you have not yet responded to my comments/questions, or to those posed by many other people here.

We want to see your lauded facts, along with links to where you get this information so we can verify it ourselves (that is how science criticism works, see), whether its on the internet or not.

Evolution could not have had happen in the first place!

[Note]
Yes; I agree that mutations do occur in nature, but never is a mutation an act of evolution. Mutations are a survival mechanism written directly into our DNA codes which explains the variety of differences in animal and Man but they are not evidence of an evolutionary process. In fact it is a known fact that Mutations actually do more harm than good. And no where is this more apparent then in our modern twenty first century where all kinds of Cancers and Diseases are just running amok. Where babies are born with all kinds of health risk or simply die in their cribs while they sleep. This is not evolution in progress but the symptoms of the damage that we are doing to ourselves at the very heart of our DNA, in our modern, post industrial and nuclear world.

Here is the thing.. as improbable as Evolution is (and yes, that whole idea is very, very, very improbable), it is still far MORE probable than any alternative presented to date.

And, well, life does exist.. and it has changed over time.

[AAFitz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00vBqYDBW5s

I believe that the above documentary best explain the position as to why Evolution is not only a closed minded topic of ignorance but why it can not happen in the first place regardless of how much time one gives the hypothetical process of evolution to occur. Simply put, the odds of life evolving in the first place are enormously staggering and completely mind blowing to say the least. And this is from a scientific perspective.

What then would you consider the odds of a God existing for 2000 years with no empirical evidence whatsoever, from, as you say, a scientific perspective?

Also, what are the odds, that a group of human beings could get together, and construct an entire religion based on a deity and have it be completely fiction?

These are rhetorical questions, for the most part, but by all means answer...I never get tired of your jokes.

Those should not be rhetorical question for they have valor and they should be taken seriously. Science after all, is a serious business of seriously observing the universe around us and learning from it through that very same "Serious Observations." To make jokes about it or not take it seriously is not science and neither is the Theory of evolution. I dare you to seriously watch the video and try and open your mind to the truth. Seriously!

"What then would you consider the odds of a God existing for 2000 years with no empirical evidence whatsoever, from, as you say, a scientific perspective?"

We, as finite humans, can never come to understand in full what it is to exist in infinity. I use the word infinity to describe not being confined to time and space. God created time and space so how can He possibly exist in those? And how can we possibly comprehend what it is like to exist in a "realm" (If we can call it a realm as opposed to simply just existing) where there is no time and space? Humans naturally believe that in order to exist it must be in our present form of confinement to this universe.

We would think that we need space and time to exist but that is only because our nature of existing is confined to time and space and so we think in this fashion. In reality we are more like fishes confined to the fish tank. But as a theory of mine, let me purpose that God is simply "Mind" or "Pure thought". A thought can exist outside of time and space and not need anything but it's intellect or intelligence in order to be. That would be a good way to describe God. He thinks, therefore He IS!

In fact when God became human in the person of Jesus he actually had to abandon his prior form of existence "as only Pure Mind," in order to invade the universe that he created. When that happen and God was born into our universe and way of existence he added to his experience of existence. As pure thought or pure mind God can do anything but he could not touch his creation. Not like we can. Now he can. Now he can experience as we can and know the universe that he created from our scientific point of view. Creation is an ever growing and changing thing for a God that needs not grow or change!

[Note]
I am not going to go into how God appeared to Jacob as a man or angels also take the form of men as that is for our benefit only. Neither God nor the angels were or are men (Except in the person of Jesus who is no longer flesh and blood but spirit). But to be able to interact with this universe as humans do, you must be a human and then you know.
-End note.

from an entirely scientific perspective all one has to do is observe the universe and witness God's mind in creation rather than to deny it. The theory of evolution is simply a way for man to create the universe without the need of a Creator. A way to deny God. In fact it makes man less then insignificant because now he is merely a cosmic accident that occurred out of a mindless universe. So the question then becomes, "How can a mindless universe create minds?" And while we are at it the next question would be, "How can lifelessness create Life?" How can plain inanimate matter, the universe, come to create us? No matter how long it takes, What would be the odds of that? And then throw the theory of evolution on top of that just for fun? Because it simply can't happen.

Watch the video and learn the answer to that one. Pretend that you are an open minded scientist in search for the truth.

So, in short, the odds are pretty long is what you are saying? That's what I figured.

In any case, and from your exact same scientific perspective, all one has to do is observe anything, and conjure up a belief of that thing, to create any delusion. The theory of God, is simply a way for a man to create his vision of the universe, without needing to scientifically investigate it.

I agree...poof there it is, really is a little easier than hundreds of years of scientific study, but...that doesn't make it right.

Further, evolution does nothing to deny God. It at best sets up a scenario that allows that he did not have to create it. But it hardly suggests God could not have created the entire cycle of evolution, and since all scientific evidence suggests just that...Even if there is a God, that's how he did it anyways.

You have just let your beliefs, which are a result of being told something when you were a child, with no empirical evidence whatsoever to back it up, lead you to disbelieve thousands of scientists over the last few hundred years...and more importantly, what, is very obvious, even practically speaking.

[Viceroy63]

Further, evolution does nothing to deny God. It at best sets up a scenario that allows that he did not have to create it. But it hardly suggests God could not have created the entire cycle of evolution, and since all scientific evidence suggests just that...Even if there is a God, that's how he did it anyways.

Until recently I also use to believe something like that. I would say to myself, "OK, God recreated this Earth 6,000 ago. But why could not evolution also be a method that God uses and used prior to 6,000 years ago. Until I realized all the evidence used by evolutionary scientist were all lies dismissed many years ago, yet they are still taught as fact today. There never has been a transitional fossil and yet evolutionary scientist continue to use the fossil records to prove that evolution is real when it is not.

PILTDOWN FORGERY
This fossil was displayed as the best transitional form between ape and man at the time. It was on displayed for more than 30 years. In 1949 experts discovered the truth that a part of an orangutan skull, The jaw part, had been attached to a human skull.
This one was advanced in 1912 and...
Dismissed in 1953

NEBRASKA MAN
This was cooked up in 1922, on the basis of a single fossil tooth. The creator of this hoax did not slack in giving it a complicated Latin name; Hesperothecus Haroldcooku. It was later discovered that the tooth actually belonged to a wild pig.

NEANDERTHAAL MAN
This one was advanced as evidence in 1856.
Dismissed in 1960.

ZINJANTROPHUS
This one was advanced as evidence in 1959.
Dismissed in 1960.

RAMAPITHECUS
This one was advanced as evidence in 1964.
Dismissed in 1979

And many more so called fossil "evidence" continues to be used to teach and advance the theory of evolution as truth when it is not.

So no; I can no longer subscribe to the theory of evolution as being any part of a God who deals in truth and not lies.

[jonesthecurl]

Why the figure of 6.000 years, viceroy?

[DoomYoshi]

Define transitional fossil viceroy.