What does an evolutionist actually believe? 
Author Message
 What does an evolutionist actually believe?
What does an evolutionist actually believe? He or she believes that all
kinds of life came from one common ancestor which came from dead chemicals.
In turn these dead chemicals themselves arose from a dead world, which arose
after being in an explosion which came from a cloud of gas which formed
itself from a voidless nothing! Tsk, tsk!

Question: How can anything come to life if it is dead? While laughing at the
resurrection of Jesus Christ, they believe in a resurrection of all life
from nothing! Tsk, tsk.

Question: Better yet, can anything come to life of itself when it never was?

Question: How can an explosion create anything but chaos?

Question: Are you saying a gigantic explosion will not kill?

Question: Do you really expect me to believe an explosion was the deciding
factor in the creation of life? I thought explosions, of the magnitude that
would send planets flying through the universe, would kill life, not create
it!

Question: Before the gas cloud exploded [Gas becoming billions of tons of
rocks?] how did it form? The gas had to have a beginning, didn't it?

Question: If it came from nothing how can something come from nothing? Isn't
that faith?

Question: When you have faith don't you have a religion?

Question: How can 0 + 0 equal life when it does not even equal one? If it
did equal one then how can one female produce offspring? Okay, how could one
male produce offspring? Oh, a single cell became two? Then somewhere along
the evolutionary trail you had to have male and female.

Question: Which one came first, the male or the female? How could one male
produce? How could just one female produce? If evolution is correct then
somewhere in history there had to be just one whale, one monkey, one lizard,
right? Was that one, a male or female?

Question: Do both fish and man have eyes because man evolved from a fish or
because both man and fish needed to see, in order to fulfill their intended
creative purpose?

With simple, basic, reasoning we can see that evolution has more than a few
major problems!

--
"There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane
history."
Sir Isaac Newton [1642-1727]



Thu, 06 Mar 2008 09:33:19 GMT
 What does an evolutionist actually believe?



Quote:
> What does an evolutionist actually believe?

Kant, are you open minded enough to discuss the subject or do you just want
to post your opinion about evolutionists?
I will give it a try, and I hope it's not just a waste of time.

Quote:
> He or she believes that all
> kinds of life came from one common ancestor which came from dead

chemicals.

First of all, evolution is not a "belief". It's a theory, and people who
think that its main assumptions are valid consider it the best explanation
of how biosphere became what it is. We (evolutionists) will change our minds
if new information and evidence leads us to a more plausible theory.
Evolution is not about how the FIRST living being came to existence but
about the relationship of species.
Assumptions about the origin of life itself is another matter.

Quote:
> In turn these dead chemicals themselves arose from a dead world, which
arose
> after being in an explosion which came from a cloud of gas which formed
> itself from a voidless nothing! Tsk, tsk!

Do you accept that living bodies are composed of chemicals? Before we go any
further we have to find some common ground.

Quote:
> Question: How can anything come to life if it is dead? While laughing at
the
> resurrection of Jesus Christ, they believe in a resurrection of all life
> from nothing! Tsk, tsk.

Please don't mix up different theories. According to creationists, a clump
of mud (=dead matter) was turned into a MAN (=life). So, we all can agree on
the hypothesis that life arose from dead matter, can't we? It's just the
DETAILS of how this transition happened what creationists and evolutionists
disagree about.

Quote:
> Question: Better yet, can anything come to life of itself when it never

was?

See above.

Quote:
> Question: How can an explosion create anything but chaos?

What are you talking about? The "big bang"?

Quote:
> Question: Are you saying a gigantic explosion will not kill?

Only if there is life in the first place. Dead matter can't be killed.

Quote:
> Question: Do you really expect me to believe an explosion was the deciding
> factor in the creation of life? I thought explosions, of the magnitude
that
> would send planets flying through the universe, would kill life, not
create
> it!

Nobody expects you to believe ANYTHING. You got to form your convictions on
whatever seems the most plausible to you.

Quote:
> Question: Before the gas cloud exploded [Gas becoming billions of tons of
> rocks?] how did it form? The gas had to have a beginning, didn't it?

I don't want to make assumptions on how the world itself came into being.
But as for your remark upon gas becoming rock I recommend you to learn some
basics of chemistry. You will find out that many "solid" things are built on
nothing but gases. Take a diamond - although it is harder than a rock, it
consists of nothing but carbon - a gas.

Quote:
> Question: If it came from nothing how can something come from nothing?
Isn't
> that faith?

I agree that these are mind boggling facts. But "nothing turned into
something" is just as mind boggling as "something has been there and will be
there in eternity". :-)

Quote:
> Question: When you have faith don't you have a religion?

A religion deals with dogmas, science has no dogmas, just assumptions which
can be changed if new and better informations are available.

Quote:
> Question: How can 0 + 0 equal life when it does not even equal one? If it
> did equal one then how can one female produce offspring? Okay, how could
one
> male produce offspring? Oh, a single cell became two? Then somewhere along
> the evolutionary trail you had to have male and female.

First you should realize that procreation is not necessarily {*filter*}
procreation. Lots of species have no sexes. They procreate by duplication of
themselves, you can also consider it "natural cloning". Have you ever heard
about "parthenogenesis"?

Quote:
> Question: Which one came first, the male or the female? How could one male
> produce? How could just one female produce? If evolution is correct then
> somewhere in history there had to be just one whale, one monkey, one
lizard,
> right? Was that one, a male or female?

No, if you understand the principles of the evolution theory there was no
"single male" or a "single female" at one time. The first cells had no
sexes, and there was a time when sex happened on a {*filter*} basis.
It seems to me you dont know much about celullar processes. Before I go on,
let me ask you: do you know what's going on in a single cell when it
reduplicates?

Quote:
> Question: Do both fish and man have eyes because man evolved from a fish
or
> because both man and fish needed to see, in order to fulfill their
intended
> creative purpose?

Man has eyes because our ancestors had eyes. We inherited the genes which
make our eyes. If we could line up ALL our ancestors in a long row we might
find a fish at a certain point of history, and if we go back further we
might find an animal which has just some light sensitive cells, and before
that we might find an animal which had not even that and was blind.
Living beings developed light sensitive cells and eyes because it gave them
an advantage in certain surroundings. On the other hand, there are still
species today which have no eyes because they live in dark surroundings and
don't need sensitivity for light.

Quote:
> With simple, basic, reasoning we can see that evolution has more than a
few
> major problems!

LOL. Problems and questions are the MOTORS of science! :-))


Fri, 07 Mar 2008 01:42:06 GMT
 What does an evolutionist actually believe?


Quote:



>> What does an evolutionist actually believe?

> Kant, are you open minded enough to discuss the subject or do you just
> want
> to post your opinion about evolutionists?
> I will give it a try, and I hope it's not just a waste of time.

>> He or she believes that all
>> kinds of life came from one common ancestor which came from dead
> chemicals.

> First of all, evolution is not a "belief". It's a theory, and people who
> think that its main assumptions are valid consider it the best explanation
> of how biosphere became what it is. We (evolutionists) will change our
> minds
> if new information and evidence leads us to a more plausible theory.
> Evolution is not about how the FIRST living being came to existence but
> about the relationship of species.
> Assumptions about the origin of life itself is another matter.

To date there is no supportive evidence for the theory of evolution.
When evolutionists can come up with the "holy Grail" then I will change my
belief.
I was once an evolutionist years ago until entropy and other positives hit
me straight in the eye.

Quote:
>> In turn these dead chemicals themselves arose from a dead world, which
> arose
>> after being in an explosion which came from a cloud of gas which formed
>> itself from a voidless nothing! Tsk, tsk!

> Do you accept that living bodies are composed of chemicals? Before we go
> any
> further we have to find some common ground.

Yes I do..
But tell me where the first living cell came from?

Quote:
>> Question: How can anything come to life if it is dead? While laughing at
> the
>> resurrection of Jesus Christ, they believe in a resurrection of all life
>> from nothing! Tsk, tsk.

The ressurection was observed and recorded by dozens of witnesses.
Jesus appeared eleven times after his death to multiple witnesses.
The resurrection of the Christ is God's holy will in action.

Quote:
> Please don't mix up different theories. According to creationists, a clump
> of mud (=dead matter) was turned into a MAN (=life). So, we all can agree
> on
> the hypothesis that life arose from dead matter, can't we? It's just the
> DETAILS of how this transition happened what creationists and
> evolutionists
> disagree about.

<snip>
How did the transition occur?
The proverbial tornado in the junkyard?


Fri, 07 Mar 2008 02:02:33 GMT
 What does an evolutionist actually believe?


Quote:



>> What does an evolutionist actually believe?

> Kant, are you open minded enough to discuss the subject or do you just
> want
> to post your opinion about evolutionists?
> I will give it a try, and I hope it's not just a waste of time.

It is. Arguing against a belief system is a waste of time.


Fri, 07 Mar 2008 09:57:38 GMT
 What does an evolutionist actually believe?


Quote:





>>> What does an evolutionist actually believe?

>> Kant, are you open minded enough to discuss the subject or do you just
>> want
>> to post your opinion about evolutionists?
>> I will give it a try, and I hope it's not just a waste of time.

>>> He or she believes that all
>>> kinds of life came from one common ancestor which came from dead
>> chemicals.

>> First of all, evolution is not a "belief". It's a theory, and people who
>> think that its main assumptions are valid consider it the best
>> explanation
>> of how biosphere became what it is. We (evolutionists) will change our
>> minds
>> if new information and evidence leads us to a more plausible theory.
>> Evolution is not about how the FIRST living being came to existence but
>> about the relationship of species.
>> Assumptions about the origin of life itself is another matter.

> To date there is no supportive evidence for the theory of evolution.

See what I mean?


Fri, 07 Mar 2008 09:58:03 GMT
 What does an evolutionist actually believe?



Quote:




> >> What does an evolutionist actually believe?
> > Kant, are you open minded enough to discuss the subject or do you just
> > want
> > to post your opinion about evolutionists?
> > I will give it a try, and I hope it's not just a waste of time.
> >> He or she believes that all
> >> kinds of life came from one common ancestor which came from dead
> > chemicals.
> > First of all, evolution is not a "belief". It's a theory, and people who
> > think that its main assumptions are valid consider it the best
explanation
> > of how biosphere became what it is. We (evolutionists) will change our
> > minds
> > if new information and evidence leads us to a more plausible theory.
> > Evolution is not about how the FIRST living being came to existence but
> > about the relationship of species.
> > Assumptions about the origin of life itself is another matter.
> To date there is no supportive evidence for the theory of evolution.

There is a lot of supportive evidence for those who open their eyes to see
it.

Quote:
> When evolutionists can come up with the "holy Grail" then I will change my
> belief.

What "Holy Grail" are you talking about? Evolutionists are not on some kind
of religious mission, it's just scientists looking for traces of what
happened in the past and finding the natural principles behind it all.

Quote:
> I was once an evolutionist years ago until entropy and other positives hit
> me straight in the eye.

Some natural laws are hard to understand, and it's probably easier to just
BELIEVE something. If you are happy in your religion, what's your point?

Quote:
> >> In turn these dead chemicals themselves arose from a dead world, which
> > arose
> >> after being in an explosion which came from a cloud of gas which formed
> >> itself from a voidless nothing! Tsk, tsk!
> > Do you accept that living bodies are composed of chemicals? Before we go
> > any
> > further we have to find some common ground.
> Yes I do..
> But tell me where the first living cell came from?

I don't know where the first cell came from, but I got my own theory about
it. However I think it's pointless to spread out any theory in front of you
when you don't even know the most basic things about cells.
I guess you wouldn't accept any other explanation than the first cell was
created by God.

Quote:
> >> Question: How can anything come to life if it is dead? While laughing
at
> > the
> >> resurrection of Jesus Christ, they believe in a resurrection of all
life
> >> from nothing! Tsk, tsk.
> The ressurection was observed and recorded by dozens of witnesses.
> Jesus appeared eleven times after his death to multiple witnesses.
> The resurrection of the Christ is God's holy will in action.

Hm, when I read the daily news I find people "witnessing" the strangest
things sometimes, often in amazing contradiction with each others and with
facts. I would not rely on witnesses of 2000 years ago. If you find them
trustworthy, just go ahead. But that got nothing to do with evolution or
anthropology.

Quote:
> > Please don't mix up different theories. According to creationists, a
clump
> > of mud (=dead matter) was turned into a MAN (=life). So, we all can
agree
> > on
> > the hypothesis that life arose from dead matter, can't we? It's just the
> > DETAILS of how this transition happened what creationists and
> > evolutionists
> > disagree about.
> <snip>
> How did the transition occur?
> The proverbial tornado in the junkyard?

You snipped all the explanation I gave when I replied to your questions,
instead of refuting them if you disagree. Now you raise new questions.
Sorry, but this is a futile discussion and doesn't lead us anywhere. If you
go into a point-by-point discussion, I'm here. But if you choose the
hit-and-run tactics, it isn't worth my time.
Just one thing: science and religion are different points of view, not
mutually exclusive. You don't have to lose your religion to understand the
principles of nature.


Sat, 08 Mar 2008 07:24:40 GMT
 What does an evolutionist actually believe?



Quote:




> >> What does an evolutionist actually believe?
> > Kant, are you open minded enough to discuss the subject or do you just
> > want
> > to post your opinion about evolutionists?
> > I will give it a try, and I hope it's not just a waste of time.
> It is. Arguing against a belief system is a waste of time.

I fear you are right. I just thought it could be an interesting exchange,
alas I didn't see any reasonable arguments so far. Obviously creationists
and evolutionists don't speak the same language. :-)


Sat, 08 Mar 2008 07:32:35 GMT
 What does an evolutionist actually believe?


Quote:







>> >> What does an evolutionist actually believe?

>> > Kant, are you open minded enough to discuss the subject or do you just
>> > want
>> > to post your opinion about evolutionists?
>> > I will give it a try, and I hope it's not just a waste of time.

>> It is. Arguing against a belief system is a waste of time.

> I fear you are right. I just thought it could be an interesting exchange,
> alas I didn't see any reasonable arguments so far. Obviously creationists
> and evolutionists don't speak the same language. :-)

The thing about creationists that amazes me is that they claim evolution has
no supporting evidence, and yet there is clearly no evidence which could
ever possibly even begin to support their belief. Odd, isn't it?


Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:10:49 GMT
 What does an evolutionist actually believe?



Quote:








> >> >> What does an evolutionist actually believe?
> >> > Kant, are you open minded enough to discuss the subject or do you
just
> >> > want
> >> > to post your opinion about evolutionists?
> >> > I will give it a try, and I hope it's not just a waste of time.
> >> It is. Arguing against a belief system is a waste of time.
> > I fear you are right. I just thought it could be an interesting
exchange,
> > alas I didn't see any reasonable arguments so far. Obviously
creationists
> > and evolutionists don't speak the same language. :-)
> The thing about creationists that amazes me is that they claim evolution
has
> no supporting evidence, and yet there is clearly no evidence which could
> ever possibly even begin to support their belief. Odd, isn't it?

I suppose the problem is that creationists think of science as some kind of
competing religion. And the dogmas of religion do not admit any doubt, hence
they close their eyes on every evidence supporting evolution.
They probably see no reason in finding evidence for their belief except for
"it is written in the Bible". But then, BELIEF doesn't need any evidence,
that's the nature of belief.
I just think it's a pity that creationists and evolutionists can't get into
meaningful communication.


Thu, 13 Mar 2008 07:10:39 GMT
 What does an evolutionist actually believe?


Quote:

> I suppose the problem is that creationists think of science as some kind
> of
> competing religion. And the dogmas of religion do not admit any doubt,
> hence
> they close their eyes on every evidence supporting evolution.
> They probably see no reason in finding evidence for their belief except
> for
> "it is written in the Bible". But then, BELIEF doesn't need any evidence,
> that's the nature of belief.

Exactly right!

Charles Sanders Pierce wrote a wonderful essay about that, something over a
century ago, IIRC.



Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:11:40 GMT
 What does an evolutionist actually believe?



Quote:


> > I suppose the problem is that creationists think of science as some kind
> > of
> > competing religion. And the dogmas of religion do not admit any doubt,
> > hence
> > they close their eyes on every evidence supporting evolution.
> > They probably see no reason in finding evidence for their belief except
> > for
> > "it is written in the Bible". But then, BELIEF doesn't need any
evidence,
> > that's the nature of belief.
> Exactly right!

> Charles Sanders Pierce wrote a wonderful essay about that, something over
a
> century ago, IIRC.

Thanks for pointing me to C.S. Peirce, he was outside my field until now.
Considering his works, he must have been a very bright guy.
This brings to mind another obstacle in the communication of creationists
and evolutionists: BELIEF includes emotions, while science seeks to exclude
emotions and is based on mere logic. This might be the reason why many
people find no comfort in scientific theories.


Sat, 15 Mar 2008 04:46:15 GMT
 What does an evolutionist actually believe?


Quote:





> Thanks for pointing me to C.S. Peirce, he was outside my field until now.
> Considering his works, he must have been a very bright guy.
> This brings to mind another obstacle in the communication of creationists
> and evolutionists: BELIEF includes emotions, while science seeks to
> exclude
> emotions and is based on mere logic. This might be the reason why many
> people find no comfort in scientific theories.

I hope you enjoy reading all the stuff Charles Sanders P. wrote. I usually
include his "Fixation of Belief" in my intro to philosophy classes.


Sat, 15 Mar 2008 09:49:03 GMT
 What does an evolutionist actually believe?

Quote:





> > > I suppose the problem is that creationists think of science as some kind
> > > of
> > > competing religion. And the dogmas of religion do not admit any doubt,
> > > hence
> > > they close their eyes on every evidence supporting evolution.
> > > They probably see no reason in finding evidence for their belief except
> > > for
> > > "it is written in the Bible". But then, BELIEF doesn't need any
> evidence,
> > > that's the nature of belief.

> > Exactly right!

> > Charles Sanders Pierce wrote a wonderful essay about that, something over
> a
> > century ago, IIRC.

> Thanks for pointing me to C.S. Peirce, he was outside my field until now.
> Considering his works, he must have been a very bright guy.
> This brings to mind another obstacle in the communication of creationists
> and evolutionists: BELIEF includes emotions, while science seeks to exclude
> emotions and is based on mere logic. This might be the reason why many
> people find no comfort in scientific theories.

There are no evolutionists. Scientists look at the known facts
available at a particular time and draw conclusions from them.

AT this point of time the Darwin-Wallace Theory of Natural Selection
offers the best explanation of the known facts.

Creationism/Intelligent Design is a hypothesis. As there is no
experimental evidence to validate it, it cannot be regarded as a
scientific theory.

In certain US States scientific texts have been censored to include
creationism. This is a step back to the dark ages when galileism was a
heresy.

B C.



Sun, 16 Mar 2008 18:07:01 GMT
 What does an evolutionist actually believe?



Quote:


> > Thanks for pointing me to C.S. Peirce, he was outside my field until
now.
> > Considering his works, he must have been a very bright guy.
> > This brings to mind another obstacle in the communication of
creationists
> > and evolutionists: BELIEF includes emotions, while science seeks to
> > exclude
> > emotions and is based on mere logic. This might be the reason why many
> > people find no comfort in scientific theories.
> I hope you enjoy reading all the stuff Charles Sanders P. wrote. I usually
> include his "Fixation of Belief" in my intro to philosophy classes.

For unknown reasons, Peirce is not very popular where I live (Germany), in
spite of his remarkable works.
BTW - where do you teach? South Africa?


Mon, 17 Mar 2008 04:33:59 GMT
 What does an evolutionist actually believe?



Quote:

>> Thanks for pointing me to C.S. Peirce, he was outside my field until now.
>> Considering his works, he must have been a very bright guy.
>> This brings to mind another obstacle in the communication of creationists
>> and evolutionists: BELIEF includes emotions, while science seeks to
exclude
>> emotions and is based on mere logic. This might be the reason why many
>> people find no comfort in scientific theories.
>There are no evolutionists. Scientists look at the known facts
>available at a particular time and draw conclusions from them.

I agree, the term is misleading. It's just a provisional term to oppose it
to creationists in the course of discussion. As a "working term" I find it
okay to indicate people who think that the theory of natural selection is
the best description of the relationship of species so far.

Quote:
>AT this point of time the Darwin-Wallace Theory of Natural Selection
>offers the best explanation of the known facts.

>Creationism/Intelligent Design is a hypothesis. As there is no
>experimental evidence to validate it, it cannot be regarded as a
>scientific theory.

That's why I consider it as an aspect of belief.

Quote:
>In certain US States scientific texts have been censored to include
>creationism. This is a step back to the dark ages when galileism was a
>heresy.

I always found it amazing how in a modern nation which brings out most of
the top scientists of the world, such text book censorship can go on, and
why creationist are so strong in numbers. In Europe they are a minority.


Mon, 17 Mar 2008 04:55:43 GMT
 
 [ 103 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

 Relevant Pages 

1. Cro Magnons evolved in Africa <= Lee/etc actually believes this

2. Evolutionary ethics (Re: What does an evolutionist actually believe?)

3. All evolutionists believe in young Earth.

4. All evolutionists believe in young Earth.

5. Why do people believe what they believe?

6. $ YES THIS ACTUALLY WORKS!!! $

7. On Doing Well in Graduate School

8. ATTN: liars, evildoers & otherwise doing

9. fred, for coconuts dark and open, kills against it, lifting actually


 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software