How can people believe in the fairy tale of macroevolution when the evidence clearly demonstrates against it?

Question

The fossil record militates against macroevolution. There is also the problem of irreducible complexity. There is not one shred of real evidence to support it. Actually, the evidence clearly demonstrates the universe is designed and life is designed. Where there is design there must be a designer.

www.discovery.org

www.reasons.org

www.carm.org

Anyone who disagrees with me should really study harder. Many scientists are abandoning Darwinian evolution in droves. Of course they just try to find another natural explanantion becausse they are biased that way. I will state it again, there is not one iota of evidence to prove macroevolution. You simply cannot get past the problem of irreducible complexity. Check out "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe. I've studied the answers both sides have to offer, studied them in depth. Macroevolution is a ridiculous theory and 50 years from now people will laugh at the idea that people ever believed in it. The computers have been telling scientists for years that it is statistically impossible. Yoiu folks that believe in it, have an incredible amount of faith. I could never have that much faith, you should be proud.

Microevolution does not in any way prove macroevolution. Darwin himself discovered just the opposite. He bred pigeons. He learned to take the common rock pigeon and breed into it beautiful tails and colors, but he could only go so far. After a few generations he could get no more changes. After living them alone for a few more generations, they reverted back to the colors of a common rock pigeon....Folks, you gotta study. Macroevolution requires blind faith. It is just another false religion.

Also, macro \evolution violates the nd Law of Thermodynamics...entropy.

STUDY

Make the the 2nd Law of thermodynamics

Answer 1

This is a case where some people don't want to admit the truth, that God exists. Because if God exists, then there could be a right and wrong and a morality which they don't want. True science should not rule out any possibilities, including the existence of a creator. However what we have today are a bunch of them who start off without even considering the possibility of a God. so when the evidence points that way they refuse to see it.

Answer 2

I take it you are one of the people who are not going to let mere facts change your opinion.

Have a look at the fossils of the fishapod (Tiktaalik roseae) as one of the pieces of evidence for macroevolution.

Entropy does not apply to living organisms and their creations. If it did cities would run down, not be built up. An organism and its descendants act against entropy by absorbing energy and matter from the environment.

Irreducible complexity is a fallacy. Nano technology can duplicate a host of "complex" reactions that occur in living organisms. Genetic splicing and tailoring can replicate and transplant the basic building blocks of life. The irreducible complexity of blue flowers has been matched to a gene sequence and blue roses with the specific gene sequence for blue flowers are on the horizon.

If you believe that fossils were placed in the earth to test the faith of people. Then you imply that the "god of truth" is a deceiver. It is sad, that someone would destroy aspects of something that they believe in, rather than face unpleasant facts.

If you think you are the pinnacle of intelligent design, then I would disagree and rather argue that you are evidence for mediocre to lousy design. A mind is an awful thing to deliberately waste and I can't see a competent creator working towards that aim.

If you had been alive a few hundred years ago you would have been demonstrating against the idea that the earth revolved around the sun. The bible also said that the earth had four corners. Do you still have a: “burn Galileo” bumper sticker?

Science does not have all the answers - yet. But to put your ignorance on an altar and call it god is a waste of your talents. If you look in exodus there is a restriction on the steps to an altar you may build lest others see your nakedness. Your altar of ignorance is high enough that I can see from here, that if you did not have piles, you would be a perfect anus.

Look to the bible for advice on how to behave and be ethical, but don't look to it for scientific information. Also before you have your next rant, the bible also says a few things about honesty.

Answer 3

Your question is really bizarre. When you state that scientists will just look for another natural explanation shows you have a fundamentalist misunderstanding of epistemology. The real issue is looking at ones method of knowing. Science studies the natural world and not the non-natural world, not the spirit world, not the abnatural world, not the super-natural world; just the natural world. Furthermore, science usually confines its study to that which can be measured. It's method of knowing requires that those who are skeptical be given the precise directions so that they can replicate or copy any experiment. Knowledge is supposed to be completely open to examination. The knowledge is supposed to be defined so clearly that there can be no room for interpretation. This is not actually possible because there is always more knowledge being discovered all the time and a scientist, unlike a religious bigot, is required to hold his pet theories lightly because they are likely to be superseded by more powerful evidence. Unlike religious dogma, the knowledge of science advances and expands. As science expands and can explain more and more, the parts of religious texts that depart from the spiritual and attempt to explain the natural become more and more ridiculous. The application of religion very often leads to dissension, hate, and war. The application of science usually leads to the invention of toasters, video games and MP3 players.
One fairy tale that religious bigots have abandoned is the one that theorizes that the Earth is flat and the center of the universe. The evidence is quite clear on this matter. However, if we ever become a bigot theocracy, the religious dictators will probably want to reopen the theory that the earth is flat, particularly if it says so in the Bible or some nutty dogma.

Answer 4

There's an interesting discussion on behe's book where one person addresses many of behe's claims -- http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html

I saw one poster wonder why monkeys/apes are still around if evolution is true. Note that evolution does NOT say that we descended from apes/monkeys; it says that we have a common ancestor (our separate species have a common ancestor).

It's important to consider what the motivation is when trying to attack evolution. Do we feel threatened by it? Do we think that it threatens our religion? Of course that's the reason - otherwise we wouldn't be going after it, right? People don't care whether or not chaos theory makes sense or not because they don't perceive it as threatening their beliefs. Note that if we were to somehow completely get rid of evolution, it doesn't mean that somehow our religious creation stories jump in as Truth; in other words, if science discovered that gravitation theory was completely wrong, it wouldn't mean that someone's belief that God was holding us all to earth with his Almighty Hands is true.

Answer 5

There is not one shred of evidence? Not one shred....
so....
HIV, SARS and Flesh Eating Strep don't exist?

so...
The folks with six fingers and a gene for six fingers which is DOMINANT that evolved in areas of Spain and India don't really exist, and people won't all have 6 fingers in 10,000 years, except for genetic throwbacks...

and....
You would be willing I am sure to be infected with TB bacteria from 2006 and treated with treatments that worked in 1950 -- since there's no such thing as evolution (Macro and Micro evolution by the way were created by the Creationist movement when it finally became impossible to deny all forms of evolution) the treatments should work fine -- right?

Regards,

Reynolds Jones
Schenectady, NY
http://www.rebuff.org
[e-mail]

PS To Trainer -- if your teacher actually said to you that mankind evolved FROM MONKEYS -- s/he was not teaching evolution. Mankind evolved from prior primates. Homo Sapiens Sapiens evolved from a line of prior primates in fact, which at some point were a common ancestor to monkeys -- several million years ago.

I wonder how many monkeys you have seen. The first thing that cracked my nut (I used to be a young earth creationist) was when I actually encountered monkeys and watched them for a while. I suggest you do the same.

Answer 6

The issue is not macroevolution but, rather, that one feels Christian theology is contradicted by various elements of evolution. The believer's faith - not strong enough (because it's belief-based versus experiential) to withstand the existence of a seemingly threatening thought system - is now in turmoil and, instead of addressing this as the issue, the focus is turned on the perceived enemy and energy is spent attempting to discredit it (ranging from the facile to the relatively complex).

The existence of God is not contradicted by science; however, theologies may be. Humans tend to project their thought systems outward and attribute to god (and other things) what is actually in their own minds. Our thought systems are filled with concepts of reward, judgment, punishment, etc. and we then project these things outward and attribute them to the gods we've created from these projections. Ironically, Jesus' parable of the prodigal son addresses this: both the 'good' and 'bad' sons have projected their image of the father (God) and think the father behaves the way their perceptions tell them he does. When the 'good' son realizes that the father's unconditional love doesn't follow the concept of reward, punishment, forgiveness-for-sin (thus making sin real), etc. the good son is furious; it's exactly the same fury that people get when they're confronted by anyone who teaches the message of unconditional love. And, so, the message is changed and the theology becomes one that appeals to our egos. Therefore, THIS must be addressed -- the theology -- and not whether science or other thought systems appear to contradict the theology.

At the risk of contradicting myself (by focusing on evolution), it's important to consider a number of things. Firstly, 'theory' is an overloaded term; it has a completely different meaning in science than in lthe layman's usage. To suggest that scientific theory implies a sort of speculative wild guess is incorrect; rather, science ensures that its models are continually updated as new data comes in and the model's predictive capabilities are tweaked (with their domain limitations shown, if necessary). Secondly, if quantum theory - which has been proven to be very accurate in its predictive powers - were fully understood by those who adhere to a fundamentalist interpretation of christianity, it would be attacked with full force given its very disturbing implications.

The bottom line? Theologies are meant to be MEANS to an end, not an end in and of itself. People have used these means to have a direct experience of God (Ultimate Reality, Ultimate Ground of Being, whatever). These direct experiences are not belief-based; they're literal and direct and these people who get enlightened and KNOW God never feel threatened by ANY thought system. They KNOW and so can we.

Answer 7

dude its just a THEORY. There are many holes in it still. Thats why science is always working to understand the world better. Evolutions is SCIENCE'S method of explaining our origins. They can only work with physical things not spiritual. Religion therefore explains our Spiritual side. 2 Peter 3:8 But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Thus the 7 day creation was actaully about 7000 years, where "cavemen" lived and died, etc.peace.

Answer 8

If you believe in microevolution, you cannot deny macroevolution, for one implies the other. You cannot deny that microevolutionary advantages in a life form will naturally accumulate over millions of years and eventually cause a divergence of species.

Answer 9

Let me ask you... what books about evolution have you read that were NOT written my a creationists?


"Also, macro \evolution violates the nd Law of Thermodynamics...entropy."

"Make the the 2nd Law of thermodynamics"

(This is the kind of attention you put into what you are doing and you expect people to listen to you?)

Answer 10

I studied evolution in school, and I just find it hard to believe that people can believe that we came from monkeys. Then why are there still monkeys? Why aren't they all people now? Ugh, give me a break! I didn't believe it then and I don't now either.