Evolution doesn't make these claims nor are they implications of the theory. People do, such as yourself. And if humans aren't descended from animals, then how is it possible for us to act like animals? Such things as hedonism (and human behavior in general) really can only be explained by humans have significant common traits with animals, particularly primates (which the current theory asserts are closely related to us).
A quick google will come up with:
Evolution as a religious system has been adopted by many students, scholars and laypeople as a way to explain the origin and the development of the cosmos and all life including man. They are building their lives on the following beliefs:
1 - Space, matter and time are the infinite and the eternal trinity. It is neither being created or destroyed, only changing in form and essence;
2 - Because time is infinite, the potential of accidents to happen, for example, the formation of life from previously nonliving matter, becomes not only possible, but probable;
3 - All life that exists today is the result of these chance accidents occurring in time and giving rise to a process of continued upward development of life on Earth. Man, ape, dog, cat, ant and plant, all life, at one distant point in time arose from at least one common ancestor.
Do you believe the above statements?
I did a look around for well regarded people to quote from and not just "bums by the side of the bus stop", that is I picked the leaders and not no-bodies to quote from.
So a google will come up with:
Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation—regardless of whether or not the facts support it.
‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. ...'
This shows the evolutionist is commited to the idea of naturalism no matter the evidence.
Another athiests (who is well regarded)
Link: http://creation.com/the-religious-nature-of-evolution
Renowned Canadian science philosopher Dr Michael Ruse made astonishing admissions about the religious nature of evolution at a symposium titled ‘The New Antievolutionism’ (during the 1993 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.) These statements shocked his colleagues because he has written a book, But is it Science?, denouncing creationism because it is religious and was the last person expected to give the game away.
He appeared to admit that evolution is based upon dogmatic exclusion of a miraculous creation/creator—in effect, a faith commitment to naturalism, the unprovable, religious belief that no supernatural element exists or is relevant.
Ruse said this:
‘at some very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism, namely that at some level one is going to exclude miracles and these sorts of things, come what may.’
He went on to defend this unprovable assumption by the fact that, in his view, it works. Nevertheless, said Ruse,
‘evolution, akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically.’
‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
‘ Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’
Michael Ruse was professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada
Shallis, M., In the eye of a storm, New Scientist, pp. 42–43, January 19, 1984.
‘It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. Yet it seems that scientists are permitted by their own colleagues to say metaphysical things about lack of purpose and not the reverse. This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic religion (if you can have such a thing).’
I could go on and on about quotes from people I've never heard of before myself, but I hope I made my point that evol to it's logical conclusions makes these claims. Why do people act like animals?, well why not, people are sinners made in the image of God. We have the ability to do what ever we want, and that includes unspeakable things. But since we are made in the image of God, we are also capable of things animals can not do, true love (not a child), scarified oneself for another person, (army solder protected his home country), hospitals etc... We can stouped down to a chimps/dogs level but they can't come up to our level of thinking.
Over 100 million people are born each year. There is roughly 6 billion bits of information and noise on each one's DNA. That's effectively equivalent to a channel with 6*10^17 bits per year or roughly a 10 gigabaud channel always open transmitting DNA information to the next generation.
You make large numbers to attempt to assert the basic believe that given many possible combinations that enhancments must occour. So far that statement in reality will show alot of people giving brith to replicates with less information than the parents and more noise due to mutations. It still suffers from irrducable complexity. To make a car analogy...
There are 100 million cars in the world with 100 million teenagers making modifications to the cars. They show off thier cars once a year at a car show. The chances of a design surviving to the next generation is how popular it will become. E.g. blue lights at the bottom, bigger exsource pipes and spinning wheel hub caps. Now mutations would be one teanager trying something new, like lights on the window wippers. Now if the teenager modifies the engine and destorys it, it then wont go on to the next show. Thats an example of a "bad" mutations taking effect. But what if the 100 million teanagers want jet/warp power engines, first they will remove the engine and (lost the car), ok first add the warp engines peice by piece,
Step 1 would be to add the antimatter, a 17yr would not have that information
Step 2 the application would probably destroy the teenager and half the city he lives on. (i.e. half evolved is fully dead)
Basically all thoses 100 million people are ALL working on a skellinton design. They can not move away from that design too far or they die from tumours, caners, blood deceises, etc...
Now you know the nature of mutations are they are harmful to people, the body activlty fights against copying mistakes of mutations because they are so harmful. So in that signal analogy, If you are transmitting information you MUST follow the spification in the protocol. I.e., there are (number out of my arse) 100 trillion http requests per year, they all follow the spification or they will be rejected. The requests are very greatly but only within the limits of the design. hence HTTP requests will never become a FTP packet or a DOOM3 multiplayer update position packet. It just wont happen, so playing to chance wont work because you can not have every possible outcome.
To try to prove evolution, from goo to you, heck, even your parents to you to your children, you need a way to increase information. Remember as I stated before, NS is a selective process filtering out the information, Mutations are noise, which adds cancers and deceises, with a handfull of times which when breaking the machinery of the cell can produce a positive result but again that doesn't show evolution.
To prove my point, watch with video of Dawkins:
http://creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped-frog-to-a-prince-critics-refuted-again
You can see he fails to anwser the question and come of with other unrelated statements (some true/some false).
If you can describe a method where a "simple" cell could use multiple proteins in together in sequence without a functional result inbetween, please let me know and the rest of the world.
According to the Bible, only Noah and his family survived the Great Flood, but a number of his ancestors were still alive after the Flood was over. The trivial alternative explanation was first, the Great Flood was a local event not a global one and that someone kept track of these ages, but they wrote it in months rather than years, only to have someone mistranslate the passage later.
Please tell me where you got the idea that other people were still alive after the flood?
The only humans to survive was on the ship, all 8 of them.
The flood cover the highest mountain, and because the flood point was higher then the "container" it would of been global as no point would of been above the water. This is a major point of genisis. They where in the boat for 1 year and 1 week. (I remember a radio show that said this date landed on a particalur jewish holiday but I can't remember the details now. Actually when ever the bible gives a numberical value, it usually points to something alot deeper, probably the 66/40 radio show from chuck misler, he would explain theology in this bible readings greatly, pick a bible book in his website and listen :-) )
If would probably reply with some statement like "Oh my theres not enought water today on the earth to cover the planet, where did all the water go?" Well to nip your question in the bud, the answer is the water is there there in the occeans. 70% of earth is covered water, If you falten the land on the earth the water would over the land for over 1.7 Kms!!!
Now the "fountains of the deep" opened up, (imaging a .5km layer of water 10kms down) down the middle of pangonia land (what ever the athiest called the land mass of all ther land as 1 conteinant.) that would of created a fountain which would of cracked the earth as 3 Kms per second and the water would of reached into upper atmosphere. The 2 contentiants would then slide off the layer at a speed of 40Km per hour at first, slowing down to cms per year as we do today. This is call catastrohic plate technotinic theroy. It would then give large mountains that we have today and thus room for the water to drain away into the occens.
Taking the Bible literally will fail since it's stories are inherently contradictory and probably have been frequently mistranscribed over the millennia.
Actually the jews where very very serious about their bible and there were 3 versions of the bible kept by the jews since the begining in the babylon captivity for 70 years. Between the 3 there ARE differences, 9 to 14 letters are spelt differently depending if you count a thing like a '~' or a dot 'i' on a I. So there are no questions about the record keeping about the old testament.
It is often mistranscribed by people with adgendas, but we english people luckly have the king james version from 1500s It's correct (mostly, no funny bussiness in it).
Please tell me a contradictory story?
Or we could add the jet turbine to the combustion engine, piece by piece, until we have a combustion engine welded to a jet engine, then take away the combustion engine piece by piece. Not elegant, but it is a counterexample to your assertion.
The problem again is that you are making up information in it. (did I do a car anlogoy before in a previous post? I often get into arguements at work, sorry I am a bit split minded trying to think what I said already)
In order for the jet turbine engine to be there, you first need all the pieces and then organize them in the proper sequnece. (Hence dawkins problem) At each stage of the jet engine you must provive a fully functional and benifital reason for having each piece there or other wise natural selection will kill of your car because it is either ineffienct or it's leaking oil and dies ;-O
Only when you have a fully function jet turbine can you allow your piston engine to decay away from mutations.
Alternately, it's like walking. We don't say that you can't walk from New York City to Los Angeles even though they are a long ways apart. It's worth noting that dogs, cats, and pidgins all have very similar DNA (incidentally, fulfilling a prediction of evolution), so I don't see the evidence that they are on different islands or "kinds" as you put it. And if evolution is correct, they have to be all on the same island since if true, one could devolve a dog exactly along the path of its evolution to the point where it had a common ancestor with the pigeon and then evolves forward exactly along the path to the pigeon.
Evolution doesn't make the prediction of dogs / cats comming out of a 4 legged thing. Evolution is used to explain why there are 4 legged dogs / cats in the first place. Evolution makes no prediction about anything. Anything can happen so nothing is predicted. Why havn't we seen wings on dogs? thats predicted by evolution then???
Evidence is how you interpet it. I am a programmer by trade, (sorry of "appeal to athory" there, I could of say milkman) and in my job i made many software. I often use the same classes in different software. from sorting techniques, storing of information, decoding of mp3 steams, etc.. they are all(often) shared between programs. That means if I did a comparsion between my applications they will be very much alike. Is Windows 95 like Windows 98? Windows 2000 like XP? These software would be very much alike but they were designed by (mostly:-P) intellegent programmers. So I rightfully claim that 92% (8% to 12% difference not 1%) of chimps shows signs of common designer. just like the horse and mouse at 95% or bannana at 50%. Are you half bannana?
It's worth noting at this point that we do have fossil records for dogs, cats, and probably pigeons as well, that show incremental development over long periods of time and merging of lineages in the past to common ancestors. In other words, we see what appears to be the path above in the fossil record.
Oh dear God, i really wish I kept a book a brought about fossils, it talked all about the differnt fossils and how they just dont show anything like that. I'll try a quick google to see if I can get that famious quote....
‘Palaeoanthropologists seem to make up for a lack of fossils with an excess of fury, and this must now be the only science in which it is still possible to become famous just by having an opinion. As one cynic says, in human palaeontology [the study of fossils] the consensus depends on who shouts loudest.’
J.S. Jones, Department of Genetics and Biometry, University College, London, in a book review. Nature, Vol. 345, May 31, 1990, p. 395.
Everybody knows fossils are fickle; bones will sing any song you want to hear.
– J. Shreeve, ‘Argument over a woman’, Discover, 11(8):58, 1990.
I FOUND IT! FAMIOUS QUOTE :-D
Dr Patterson had written a book for the British Museum simply called Evolution.2 Creationist Luther Sunderland wrote to Dr Patterson inquiring why he had not shown one single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. Patterson then wrote back with the following amazing confession which was reproduced, in its entirety, in Sunderland’s book Darwin’s Enigma:
‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’
He went on to say:
‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’3 [Emphasis added].
http://creation.com/that-quoteabout-the-missing-transitional-fossils
The web site creation.com contains alot of creationist information about science. I would recondmend reading the Q&A section, pick any subject, they got many.
Now after responding with your posting I would like to ask these questions to you my friend, (espesally spending 5 hours looking up stuff, I just moved so I also dont have a TV so I got lots a spare time today)
Please look up this 15 questions here http://creation.com/15-questions
If you can't answer them (all / any of them) you would ask yourself why would you dogmicatally belief in evolution? Look at all the flaws of it,
You will need also to explain why every cell in the world have a APT Sync engine in it where live would not be possible. The APT Sync engine converts a chem into another APT chems, which is then used as a form of energy currency in the body. (Cininide kills so quicky because it stops the motors in the cell)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3KxU63gcF4&feature=player_embedded
Then look at another nano machine in the cell The Kinesin Linear Motor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOeJwQ0OXc4&feature=player_embedded
Ask yourself what is more probable, a blind process which no one can think of a way to get it to work just happening trip up and cough up you. Or you, and all your cells and all the nano robots in your cells to all the 6GB of information in each of your cells was designed by a creator who is very very smart and powerful. Please check out what is the evidence. I am always open for a "Christian" view of things.
I gotta sleep now, I would look forward to your reply khallow.
