Login

Join for Free!
117020 members


Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Re: Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

Postby christianstrategies » Wed Feb 15, 2012 9:41 pm

AstraSequi wrote:I'm spending far more time on this than I had intended...

christianstrategies wrote:What I mean is:
...
Is it clearer now?

Yes, thank you. Now - if such an experiment was repeated in a laboratory, what would you think had been demonstrated?

Or suppose some different criterion were met instead:
- if the experiment showed that a self-replicating but non-cellular entity had been produced?
- if the experiment showed that all the components found in living organisms could be produced spontaneously?
- if the experiment was run, and it was clear that it would work if it were done enough times, but it would take lots of repetitions (costing enough money to be infeasible to actually carry out)?

Alternatively: what other kinds of evidence would convince you that evolution occurs?


You're speculating. Science that is proofed is science that works: e.g. the byke is not only to decorate, to speculate, but is indeed able to transport persons... that is not the case of evolutionism: it is non proofed... that's why we speculate...

as alternative to the experience of creating life from void (without a creator: God or a geneticist), I suggest to make evolve a man from an australopythecus... again, another experience impossible to reproduce: it takes "millions of years"... you see? Darwinism is full of non proofed premises... and contradicts the declarations of God in the French website http://www.apparitionsmariales.org concerning evolutionism


AstraSequi wrote:
That's the point: Darwinism is not an evidence: it is a non proofed theoritical, and the truth, the coherency with reality, per definition, can not be proofed

What is "coherency with reality"?

And again, "cannot be tested" (even if that were the case) is not equivalent with either "true" or "false."


1. cannot be tested = not proofed = we can't say whether is true or false. You're right here. Thus, darwinism is not a evidence and an acquired truth and we should not teach such a theory as an "acquired fact" to the children at schools.

2. coherency with reality = truth
"coherency with reality" can be different from "logical reasoning or theory" and contradict some logical reasonings (different logical reasonings may explain the same phenomena, but only one is true: the others, even if logical, are false and reality denies them)

2.1. 1 + 1 = 2 this logic reasoning is coherent with reality. Indeed one orange + one orange equals 2 oranges

2.2. the uncorruptible body of St Padre Pio which hardly fought the modernist ideologies goes against the logic that "corpses, under normal conditions of conservation, shall decompose after some days". Coherence with reality, evidence, shows it: it doesn't corrupt with time, which goes against the laws of the nature and testifies the holiness of Pater Pio and the legitimity of the doctrines which goes against modernist ideologies (I mean: not to stop science and modernity, but rather to fight the modernist ideologies which goes against the ultra conservative catholic doctrine)

AstraSequi wrote:
AstraSequi wrote:But "the million of years" stories are also far from being an evidence. The reliable time machine is not there to test the truth, the coherency with reality. Logical reasoning, (= logical date procedures) means nothing without the test of coherency with reality, which is impossible to do for dates before the Flood...

Then what evidence would convince you of the age of the earth? You and I both know that time machines are not available, if they are even possible.

I think you may want to talk to the physicists and geologists.


That only shows that dates before the flood are non proofed, and thus, not reliable.

However, I have to become more prudent concerning very ancient dates. According to God The Son in the French web site http://www.apparitionsmariales.org, mankind (=Adam) is only 6.000 years old, but the moon turns around the earth since millions of years:
Hypothesis 1: the 6 days recite is non literal until the 6th day of the creation of Adam
Hypothesis 2: the seer was a lier and Jesus didn't tell that. Please note that the fact of Adam being 6.000 years old is coherent with Genesis (Jesus didn't contradict Moses).
author (source): christianstrategies
christianstrategies
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:33 am

Re: Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

Postby christianstrategies » Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:18 pm

AstraSequi wrote:
You could easily deduce it from my previous quoted text below:
serious mutation: able to trigger a change of specie
small mutation: the opposite of serious mutation

Thank you. So why are you not using the term "change of species"?

The next question is, what would you consider to be a change of species? Please make sure that it applies to both microbes and to larger organisms (and you can supply a different definition for each if you choose).


It is not my task to define what a specie is. It has been done by biologists, it seems to be coherent for macroscopic animals and plants (champignons different from orange trees, horses different from humans). Concerning microbes, such analyse should be rigorously analysed, because the differences are less/not visible.

But to give you an idea:

E.coli which dies in citric acid is a subtype of E. coli bacterias (specie)
E. coli which survives in citric acid is a mutant form of the same E. coli specie.

because

Mycobacterium tuberculosis resistent to antibiotics is also a mutant form of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis but didn't change of specie.

and

people with Aids immunity belong to the human race and didn't change of specie

(the fact to survive in persence of a toxic agent, citric acid, antibiotics or the HIV virus may be a result of a mutation but is not synonym of a new specie)

AstraSequi wrote:
AstraSequi wrote:...are you saying that humans have not changed into a new species in 30,000 generations, therefore it is impossible for any change [of species] to happen at all in any time frame?

I still don't think you addressed this question. It's possible that this is being caused by a language difference across English and French - again, it is a question about whether you are making a particular inference. I'm fairly sure the answer is no, but then I don't know what argument you are using to try and demonstrate the conclusion.


Indeed change of species is possible, but only through sex between closer species (e.g. mule, hominids) or intelligent creation (e.g. a geneticist creates a synthetic virus in labo). What God the Son said in http://www.apparitionsmariales.org is that, through darwinism (the natural mutation mechanism), mutations and adaptations to the environment are possible, but not evolution into a superior specie (australopythecus evolution to human is thus not possible in the nature, only through the natural mutation mechanism). What happened was the opposite, through sex between closer species, man downgraded into australopythecus.

Question 1. Man didn't evolve in 30.000 generations, so darwinism doesn't happen. OK, it is also non proofed.
Question 2. however, change/creation of specie is possible in vary particular cases, out of the range of darwinism (bestiality or intelligent creation)

AstraSequi wrote:Or if you want, only answer the main question:
AstraSequi wrote:I think your main argument is something similar to "The world [alternatively, life] is 6,000 years old, therefore there was not enough time for evolution to happen, therefore evolution did not happen." Is that correct?


You are operating under some argument that concludes with "therefore, evolution did not happen" (or "therefore, species cannot change into another" or something similar). I don't really understand what that argument is - at least, I can't seem to find anything of the form "X is true, Y is true, therefore Z is true."

Your main premise, at last in your last few posts, seems to be "humans have not recently changed into another species" (and possibly, "microbes may have changed into another species in one case"). I don't think it's possible to get from this to "species cannot change into another." Am I wrong, or are there premises that I'm missing?


Even if man was millions of years old, evolution (= change of specie) wouldn't happen. Jesus self says that. Without contesting the mutations mechanism.

correction: E. coli didn't change of specie. Not even one case of change of specie.

Yes, you got the point. Darwinism is non proofed. The problem is that creationism is also non proofed. But creationism has now a small advantage: is already possible to create synthetic life, e.g. a virus, through intelligent design (a creator: a geneticist).

At least we should tell the truth to the children at schools: darwinism is non proofed, but creationism is mainly also non proofed. Thus, if we teach them darwinism, we shall also give them the biblical anternative and say that both are non proofed.
author (source): christianstrategies
christianstrategies
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:33 am

Postby sachin » Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:52 am

christianstrategies
Darwinism is full of non proofed premises... and contradicts the declarations of God in the French website http://www.apparitionsmariales.org concerning evolutionism


If your proofs are from such nonsense websites, then you must believe this website too.
Proof #11 - Notice that there is no scientific evidence http://godisimaginary.com/i11.htm
Senior Education Officer, BNHS, India. www.bnhs.org

Bitter Truth!
Who says reason for world war IV will be Petrol?
Reason lies in two words "Me and Mine".
User avatar
sachin
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: MUMBAI / INDIA


Re: Re:

Postby christianstrategies » Thu Feb 16, 2012 8:07 pm

sachin wrote:
christianstrategies wrote:Yes, in French: "http://forums.lesoir.be/index.php?showtopic=14284&st=820&p=821648&#entry821648"
the original, also in French, shall be found somewhere in the web site http://www.apparitionsmariales.org, the Web site of private messages of Jesus and Mary, including also explanations that touch scientifical domains (evolutionism, hominids, dates etc.). It shall be in the topic "nature et création". I think I should also give a look there in order to increase my knowledge in this domain...


Any proof that this is not fake?


1. Mostly not. They're mostly logical and coherent, but it is always possible that a fake message is mixed with 99 good messages. Indeed, since the freemasonry entered inside the Vatican, in the years 1950-60, it became very difficult fo officialize private messages from heaven. Our Lady and Jesus keep appearing in private, but it is always non official, even if it is true. We have to test the messages, to check coherency with the bible and with the previous apparitions, in order to try to identify the true messages. Despite of that, I've checked many private messages (apparitions in N. York, Akita, Garabandal, Cairo, Fatima, those of apparitionsmariales, etc.), and they look logical, coherent, and also coherent with reality, when available. However, it is not possible to test everything. Please note that Jesus, Mary or the archangel St Michael are not liers. The risk appears only from the supposed seers, who could "imagine /lie" over such messages. Anyhow, I think these messages shall be taken seriously, even when they cannot be 100 % tested. Something like: "watch out: it is possible that Jesus said (...) and He doesn't lie..."

2. a few proofs were done, concerning other apparitions (NY or Medjugorje) and these messages from apparitionsmariales.org follow the logic and the coherency with the bible and with those apparitions.
author (source): christianstrategies
christianstrategies
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:33 am

Re: Re:

Postby christianstrategies » Thu Feb 16, 2012 8:27 pm

JackBean wrote:
christianstrategies wrote:Yes, in French:
the original, also in French, shall be found somewhere in the web site , the Web site of private messages of Jesus and Mary, including also explanations that touch scientifical domains (evolutionism, hominids, dates etc.). It shall be in the topic "nature et création". I think I should also give a look there in order to increase my knowledge in this domain...


I'm sure, you will find something in English, if Jesus said that, right? (best with direct link to the page) Or better, verse from Bible, because if Jesus said that, it has to be in Bible, has it not?


1. Well, I'm translating and correcting my web site, when available, in English, based on the Bible, the declarations in http://www.apparitionsmariales.org ando also from the English web site http://www.tldm.org, over the true but not yet official astonishing declarations of Jesus and Mary (and others) in New York. Maybe with a search in Google we could find something similar in English. But for me is not really necessary, I don't have problems with French.

2. Unfortunately, the Bible doesn't explains/contains everything. The mobil phones are not explicitely mentioned in the Bible. I believe that the Bible is reliable also in scientific domains (good translations required, however), but Jesus and Mary appear sometimes in private and complement the Bible, whenever required. I'm waiting ansiously for a comment from Them over the Big Bang (I mean, more details over the 6 day period). But in a private declaration from apparitionsmariales (translating with Google is always possible), Jesus said that the mankind has only 6.000 years ago, which agrees with the book of Genesis. Jesus or Mary in NY (source: http://www.tldm.org, topics related from link 'directives from heaven') said that the first couple were Adam and Eve, created by God, which matches the recite of Genesis. Jesus and Mary in the private apparitions speak many different subjects in the context of the knowledge of our modern times (darwinism, atoms, dinossaurs, hominids, prophecies etc.)

note: a lightly confusing point for me is that Jesus said in apparitionsmariales.org that the moon turns around the earth since 'millions of years' ago, thus making believe the first 5 days of creation were not literal. Even so, the word taken to translate into day from the original source, seems to mean 'a period of time', rather than '24 hours'. I had to correct my way of thinking about dates of the beginning because of these declarations. Please refer also to my last comment to sachin.
author (source): christianstrategies
christianstrategies
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:33 am

Re:

Postby christianstrategies » Thu Feb 16, 2012 8:40 pm

sachin wrote:
christianstrategies
Darwinism is full of non proofed premises... and contradicts the declarations of God in the French website http://www.apparitionsmariales.org concerning evolutionism


If your proofs are from such nonsense websites, then you must believe this website too.
Proof #11 - Notice that there is no scientific evidence http://godisimaginary.com/i11.htm


I've gave a little look. I can contradict some of the arguments (although we cannot proof everything about God)

1. We can see the face of Jesus. It was painted by Holy Faustina, after a private apparition of God the Son, and it appears at http://www.faustina.ch/obraz/image.htm, and, if you honor Jesus with full trust regarding His picture, you shall be saved (from hell)

2. Yes, we have some proofs about God: coherencies with reality/evidences. There are a few public and permanent miracles: the uncorruptibles bodies of some saints (with antimoderist catholic doctrines) testify their santity as persons of God. Also to become holy, a no refutable and full proofed miracle has to occur: you may check the archives of the Vatican concerning that. One of the last known miracles was the healing of a religious sister of a disease like Parkison, through intercession of Holy John Paul II (through a search with Google, we'll be able to find documentation about this not scientific healing). Finally, the Holy Blood of Jesus exposed in Bruges, Flanders (Belgium) is a permanent miracle, because it also doesn't perish with time, as it should. Yes, we can see the blood of God and it is also a public miracle.

Well, I'm able to discuss further concerning God/religion, but then we're exiting the main subject which is darwinism... what do you think?
author (source): christianstrategies
christianstrategies
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:33 am

Postby sachin » Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:05 am

No convincing evidence or even a proof. Miracles (if true) lacks major requirement reproduciblity on demand. So I don't consider any significance of mentioning God's creation in discussion of Darwin's theory (Which at no point comments on God). So we will try to be scientific only, without mentioning anything about God, bible or miracles.
Senior Education Officer, BNHS, India. www.bnhs.org

Bitter Truth!
Who says reason for world war IV will be Petrol?
Reason lies in two words "Me and Mine".
User avatar
sachin
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: MUMBAI / INDIA

Postby JackBean » Fri Feb 17, 2012 6:30 pm

If I understand correctly, there are Jesus and Mary living in New York, USA, right now?
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5667
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

Re: Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

Postby AstraSequi » Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:54 am

christianstrategies wrote:
AstraSequi wrote:Now - if such an experiment was repeated in a laboratory, what would you think had been demonstrated?

Or suppose some different criterion were met instead:
- if the experiment showed that a self-replicating but non-cellular entity had been produced?
- if the experiment showed that all the components found in living organisms could be produced spontaneously?
- if the experiment was run, and it was clear that it would work if it were done enough times, but it would take lots of repetitions (costing enough money to be infeasible to actually carry out)?


You're speculating. Science that is proofed is science that works: e.g. the byke is not only to decorate, to speculate, but is indeed able to transport persons... that is not the case of evolutionism: it is non proofed... that's why we speculate...


If you make a prediction, you have to be able to answer for it - what you will conclude if it succeeds or fails, and what you will interpret if any particular result is produced. Speculation is part of science - we make hypotheses, then test them. Failing to do this (making a prediction but refusing to say how it will change your position if you are wrong) implies that you actually won't change your position, and that as a result, there's actually no point in talking about evidence.

If you're right, then you have nothing to worry about, because the evidence to disprove you will not exist.

If you think that "nobody can create life spontaneously" is actually not a prediction made by your position, then retract the prediction, and nobody will think badly of you for it. However, if it is, then you have to agree that falsification will show at least part of the position to be incorrect.

I will add another question: is there any evidence that would convince you that you are wrong, in part or in whole? If not, then your position is unfalsifiable.

Please answer the questions - I will respond to the rest of your points when you do. If you're not sure about your answers, or anything about the exact prediction that you're making, take as much time as you need to think about it, and to ask questions yourself - there's nothing wrong with that.
AstraSequi
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:14 am

Re:

Postby christianstrategies » Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:42 pm

JackBean wrote:If I understand correctly, there are Jesus and Mary living in New York, USA, right now?


No: they appeared to Veronika Lueken, New York, between 1968 and 1994 and told many things to her. To proof the truthfullness of these apparitions, despite the non recognition by the Vatican:

1. you may ask to the Holy Ghost in spirit and wait for His answer, as I did (and He confirmed it to me)
2. you can check by yourself in the news (or doing a Google concerning less recent news) about the infiltration of evil elements in the Vatican since the times of the concile Vatican II:
2.1. murder of Pope John Paul I (subit death). OK, we're not able to proof what really happened to pope Paul VI..
2.2. the supposed murder of pope John Paul II recognized that he was under the command of the nr 2 of the Vatican
2.3. a new plot to kill pope Benedict XVI was discovered recently, according to the news, not so many days ago...
author (source): christianstrategies
christianstrategies
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:33 am

Re:

Postby christianstrategies » Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:57 pm

sachin wrote:No convincing evidence or even a proof. Miracles (if true) lacks major requirement reproduciblity on demand. So I don't consider any significance of mentioning God's creation in discussion of Darwin's theory (Which at no point comments on God). So we will try to be scientific only, without mentioning anything about God, bible or miracles.


1.Not really an evidence? The fact that bloed or a corpse don't perish under normal conditions of conservation, is not an evidence? You can even find photos... do simply this test: you go to the chapel of the Holy Blood, you check the conditions (blood simply under a closed bottle of parfum, but not in the vacuum), you wait 6 months (the time you will, even 2000 years...), and you go there again... Of course, you won't be able to reproduce it: it goes against the laws of the nature/physics... if you try to reproduce it, the blood/corpse perish... you can even make your personal photos of the Blood of God, as I did and is available on the web...

2. As you may know, we have evidences of creationism: a scientist geneticist is already able to create synthetic virus in labo... if you remove the creator, is the same as to refute that the creator/the geneticist was not there to create the synthetic virus... really coherent? It seems rather a try to remove God from the procedure of the creation of biologic life, at all price... try to say to the creator/geneticist of the synthetic virus, that such virus was the result of the hasard and spontaneous mutations... you won't be able to proof it, but the opposite we already able to proof: the scientist will be able to conceive a new synthetic virus in labo... I believe that soon geneticists will be able to create other bigger forms of biological life: a very dangerous power in the hands of geneticist engineers... because such genetic experiments are able to generate new forms of distortions of the nature...
author (source): christianstrategies
christianstrategies
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:33 am

Re: Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

Postby christianstrategies » Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:24 pm

AstraSequi wrote:If you make a prediction, you have to be able to answer for it - what you will conclude if it succeeds or fails, and what you will interpret if any particular result is produced. Speculation is part of science - we make hypotheses, then test them. Failing to do this (making a prediction but refusing to say how it will change your position if you are wrong) implies that you actually won't change your position, and that as a result, there's actually no point in talking about evidence.


Speculation may have its role in non proofed science: the so called not proofed theories: but without the proof of coherency with reality, they risk to be "logical non proofed imagination". I agree that I'm not able to proof everything concerning creationism neither. When we enter into speculation we must accept that we may introduce errors: that's why sometimes I have to update my religious/scientific web site also.

AstraSequi wrote:If you're right, then you have nothing to worry about, because the evidence to disprove you will not exist.


Yes, but it is not so easy: the mutations phenomena made possible to think that everything was possible through spontan mutations, I mean, mutations without a programmer/creator/geneticist. The Catholic Church and the book of Genesis were right, but the clergy, with less scientifical knowledge, were not able to face the darwinist offensives in the centuries 19 and 20. Only now some better evidences begin to become available (50.000 generations of E. coli etc.)


AstraSequi wrote:If you think that "nobody can create life spontaneously" is actually not a prediction made by your position, then retract the prediction, and nobody will think badly of you for it. However, if it is, then you have to agree that falsification will show at least part of the position to be incorrect.


I defy scientists to try to create life spontaneously... they can try it in a spaceship, in the moon, over a disisnfected space over the earth... Science already recognises the "theory of spontan generation" as false (in the middle ages, they thought it was possible, for instance, that rats would "spontaneously appear" in a home, from "void")

AstraSequi wrote:I will add another question: is there any evidence that would convince you that you are wrong, in part or in whole? If not, then your position is unfalsifiable.


The evidences seem to show that I'm right... but I agree that, from time to time, I have to review my points of view... I trust in the divine messages, but we have to have critical mind and try to test them to check their truthfullness... they don't say every scientifical details... sometimes, I learn things to oblige me to correct my points of view etc...

some evidences:
1. public and permanent miracles (uncorruptible corpses and blood of Saints) proof that, from time to time, supernatural interventions are possible and that laws of the physics don't rule the world at 100% (but 99.99% is however possible). It is not enough however to proof that Adam was created from the clay of the ground. It makes it a possibility but not an irrefutable evidence.

2. 50.000 generations of mutant bacteria E. coli are not able to proof change of specie. With generations enough for 1.250.000 years for man, no change of specie... evidence here goes against darwinism... man changes of specie with a lot less positive mutations and generations? Really?

3. we have proofs of creationism through genetic engineering. Creation of synthetic virus in labo through a geneticist is already possible and a fact... but if you want to the same experience without a creator/scientist, you'll be able to wait a loooooong time... the famous millions of years, isn't it? Conclusion: creationism: proofed darwinism: non proofed


AstraSequi wrote:Please answer the questions - I will respond to the rest of your points when you do. If you're not sure about your answers, or anything about the exact prediction that you're making, take as much time as you need to think about it, and to ask questions yourself - there's nothing wrong with that.


I confess sometimes I have difficulty to follow your reasonings... but here above goes the answers. If something was not clear, please specify and make it clear also. Thank you.
author (source): christianstrategies
christianstrategies
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:33 am

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron