I'm absolutely amazed by reading this. To the point of almost being sickened by some of you so called 'scientific' people. JCL, you're a good guy. You (apparently) believe in evolution without hating people who oppose your beliefs, and you don't resort to belittling them, as if it helps your point. I appreciate that.
Some of us are here to have a scientific argument, and that's what I'm hoping for. However, some of the statements on the side of 'science' are either hate-filled, or more closely resemble this 'insanity' we creationists supposedly have.
Furthermore, you assume that even scientists accept evolution as complete and utter fact as you do. They simply do not, and the more they experiment with genetics, etc, the more they find huge gaps and problems with their own theory. Which is why, to this day, while scientists study life from the perspective of evolution, they understand that evolution is starting to fail as a theory.
However, I'm not posting this to get into the discussion just yet. I still need a short time to finish formulating my thesis, because genetics is definately not a simple thing. I've been cramming my brain full these past few days.
My argument is going to be completely scientific, but what it won't do is compeletely disprove evolution. What it will do is dispell the notion that evolution is fact and that anyone can believe it based on the evidence. It will show that evidence for evolution can only be evidence for evolution if you already believe evolution works. My argument is simply intended to show what scientists already know: you must have faith in the theory to believe it. Because the real evidence simply isn't there. In fact, the more we tamper with genetics and try to prove evolution, the harder it is to believe that evolution was the catalyst for the wide variety of life on earth.
I'm not asking anyone to throw science out the window, I'm simply asking that you accept that evolution is 'junk science' and move on to finding the real origins of life. I'm against evolution not for emotional reasons, but because I feel its gotten science caught in a rut. And until materialists are willing to accept that evolution is a fallen theory, science will be unable to answer the really interesting questions about life, or at least paint an accurate picture of life as we see it today.
However, this will all be done scientifically, so no claims that I'm emotional, insane, or irrational can be made. I'm just basing my arguments off of the past experience of scientists.
I also want to state for the record what I'm referring to when I use the word evolution, because I think if we're all on the same page then this discussion will be a lot smoother. Evolution can mean a lot of different things. For my purposes I'll divide it in two and explain what each is.
materialist evolution: The theory that genetic change, probably through genetic mutations (and other changes), has led to uphill changes in species and has allowed a single celled 'creature' to change into all the living things that we can now observe on earth.
creationist evolution: Yes there is such a thing. The theory that all life on earth was created by God but allowed to change within boundaries. That animals may not extend beyond these boundaries, but are still able to adapt and lose data whenever natural selection calls for it, and that this has led to speciation but NOT to uphill evolution, or the creation of new data.
The fact of the matter is, you can say that all it takes to get wings is a bit of change in the acid, but its simply not that....simple. I'll prove, using real scientific experiments, that animals aren't allowed to evolve beyond the bounds of their original creation, and that mutations are detrimental because we're dealing with complex genetic 'stories' that random mutations simply cannot alter for the better.
I'm not asking anyone to debate this post. Just wait until I bring up my scientific thesis and then we can get started. I just wanted to bring up a few preliminary points in this post about how absolutely hateful you materialists are. Oh yeah, one more thing.
Quote:
Perhaps there is no more point in trying to reason with them, or educate them. It may be that there will need to be laws put in place that will finally end some this. Perhaps certain actions will have to be taken in the future, such as deprogramming, closing churches, shutting down TV evangelists, freezing accounts for large "mega-ministries", revoking broadcast licenses for religious TV stations, radio, etc.
This is why evolution tends to breed people like Hitler. That's not to say that evolution is responsible for Hitler, but when a theory like evolution crosses someone who is so close-minded that they aren't willing to accept that they might be wrong and that anyone who disagrees isn't as 'great' of a person as they are that's when we run into problems. People like you display more traits of insanity than creationists.
I seriously hope you were joking about this paragraph, because if you weren't then that's absolutely disgusting. I have a lot of problems with these so called 'evangelists' myself, but I'm not going to resort to fascism to remove them from society. That's not what freedom is about.
Anyway, sorry to divert from the science of this thread. I'll bring things to the down and dirty in a short while. Until then...
Oh yeah, unless you want to contest or add to my definitions of evolution, then I'm not going to discuss anything brought up in this thread outside of the arena of science. I've probably already annoyed the admins with this post as it is and I don't want to get off topic too much.
