Viewing Thread:
"The Bible is fiction."

The bible was written a long time ago and was used as a way of controlling people. Ordinary people were scared of this thing known as God because they did not understand death. We still do not understand death but at least we understand life a little better.
God was used to explain the unexplainable but now we understand some of the unexplainable. We no longer need God like our ancesters. All we need is hope...
Human nature is destruction and the only thing that we should hope for is that we do not destroy the beautiful planet on which we live. We do not deserve the gifts we have but maybe one day we will be truely gateful for them...

Pandaemonium wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> The Short Proof of Evolution
> by
> Ian Johnston
>
> I will comment on this article
>
> And I was commenting on your comments until you wrote: -
>
> "But where did this soup come from? [(some primordial soup)]
> When I make soup, I know vegetables have been chopped up and put in
> the soup, hence the origin of this soup is living vegetables."
>
> And thus proved your absolute inability to grasp simple concepts. All
> the comments you posted are your own personal beliefs ONLY and not
> backed up with any evidence in the slightest.

There was NO scientific evidence used in the original evolutionary article.

> The books in a library explanation being absolute stupidity in the
> first degree.
>
> “Are you telling me, that just because the babies book is small and
> simple, it must evolve into such a huge, complicated book”
>
> Why yes, of course. You were not born fully-grown were you? You
> started off as a collection of cells. Some from your father, some
> from your mother. You are now a far more complicated creature now.
>
> Let us think a moment. From a collection of cells without a mind of
> its own, to a fully functional human being, with thoughts and
> feelings, capable of great acts of sacrifice, devotion, creation,
> discovery, love, hate and rage.
>
> Quite amazing eh?

Doesn't explain why a cow must have come from a fish, now does it? Just because they are both living creatures, there is no need to to say cows evolved from fish, eh?
>
> And you have difficulty believing a cow can evolve from a fish over
> millions of years?

Of course.
>
> Anyway, this is a case where we will have to agree to disagree. I
> can’t explain myself any clearer that I have over the past few weeks.

Well it hasn't been clear enough, as I still don't understand this theory of evolution.

Forest Fan wrote:
> The Short Proof of Evolution
> by
> Ian Johnston
>
> I will comment on this article

And I was commenting on your comments until you wrote: -

"But where did this soup come from? [(some primordial soup)] When I make soup, I know vegetables have been chopped up and put in the soup, hence the origin of this soup is living vegetables."

And thus proved your absolute inability to grasp simple concepts. All the comments you posted are your own personal beliefs ONLY and not backed up with any evidence in the slightest.

The books in a library explanation being absolute stupidity in the first degree.

“Are you telling me, that just because the babies book is small and simple, it must evolve into such a huge, complicated book”

Why yes, of course. You were not born fully-grown were you? You started off as a collection of cells. Some from your father, some from your mother. You are now a far more complicated creature now.

Let us think a moment. From a collection of cells without a mind of its own, to a fully functional human being, with thoughts and feelings, capable of great acts of sacrifice, devotion, creation, discovery, love, hate and rage.

Quite amazing eh?

And you have difficulty believing a cow can evolve from a fish over millions of years?

Anyway, this is a case where we will have to agree to disagree. I can’t explain myself any clearer that I have over the past few weeks.

The Short Proof of Evolution
by
Ian Johnston

I will comment on this article

[This document is in the public domain and may be used, in whole or in part, without charge and without permission, by anyone, provided the source is acknowledged. Last revised in July 2001]

We live, we are constantly told, in a scientific age. We look to science to help us achieve the good life, to solve our problems (especially our medical aches and pains), and to tell us about the world. A great deal of our education system, particularly the post-secondary curriculum, is organized as science or social science. And yet, curiously enough, there is one major scientific truth which vast numbers of people refuse to accept (by some news accounts a majority of people in North America)--the fact of evolution.

I heard evolution was a theory, called the theory of evolution, not fact, the theory of evolution. First mistake there then.

Yet it is as plain as plain can be that the scientific truth of evolution is so overwhelmingly established, that it is virtually impossible to refute within the bounds of reason. No major scientific truth, in fact, is easier to present, explain, and defend.

So bar the fact that every creation has a creator, which science itself tells us, these famous 50 amino acids, apparently came out of nowhere. And from them, we get human life? Seems a strange fact to me and I know a lot of questions evolution can't "defend" against.

Before demonstrating this claim, let me make it clear what I mean by evolution, since there often is some confusion about the term. By evolution I mean, very simply, the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them, for example, the process by which, say, a species of fish gets transformed (or evolves) through various stages into a cow, a kangaroo, or an eagle.

I'm sorry, this is just getting rediculous now, forgive me, but a fish evolving into a cow! How could a fish get about 50 times bigger, change the its skin type, change its appearance completely and even change its whole breathing technique and its dependance on water! I mean that is the normal trades of a fish, isn't it? And people really believe this?

This definition, it should be noted, makes no claims about how the process might occur, and thus it certainly does not equate the concept of evolution with Darwinian Natural Selection, as so many people seem to do. It simply defines the term by its effects (not by how those effects are produced, which could well be the subject of another argument).

How did the process occur, where is our first evolution ancestor, eh? What got the ball rolling? 50 amino acids? Where did they come from?


The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent.

The theory of evolution.

This point has been overwhelmingly established in the past century and a half, ever since the French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated how fermentation took place and thus laid to rest centuries of stories about beetles arising spontaneously out of dung or gut worms being miraculously produced from non-living material.

But this is how evolution is telling us, it states that 50 amino acids just arose from NO-WHERE, so well done evolution you've made your first contradiction, by stating the fact that every living creature must have a living parent and that beetles do not aries from dung and gut worms from non-living materials. But evolution told me, my ancestor was sea-slime, isn't this a tad rediculous, just like the gut worm myth? So, using exactly the same logic, evolution states that of course gut worms don't come from a non-living material or dung, yet they percieve it as FACT, that our ancestors are sea-slimes.

There is absolutely no evidence for this ancient belief.

There is absolutely no evidence for evolution.

Living creatures must come from other living creatures.

i.e. humans don't come from amino acids, it's not a creature, now is it?

It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space.

But where did this soup come from? When I make soup, I know vegetables have been chopped up and put in the soup, hence the origin of this soup is living vegetables.

That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism.
There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein)

Evolution is science fiction.

that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep).

So, just how did 50 amino acids develop to human beings?

The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. This, I take it, is self-evident. Let me cite a common example: many animals have what we call an internal skeletal structure featuring a backbone and skull. We call these animals vertebrates. Most animals do not have these features (we call them invertebrates). The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments.

It's actual scientific fact, not some wacky science fiction theory.

The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate). In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle).

Fossil records are only ever guessed at and are never properly analyzed, with suffecient scientific proof, jsut mere guesses.

Well, if we put these three points together, the case for evolution is air tight.

Or in English, remains merely a theory.

If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates).

So, picture this, I go to the library and browse through their selection of books. I take with me to a table, five books, a small simple almost entirely picture book for babies, a small book for children, a paperback novel for young adults, a thick Atlas for adults and a huge reference type book for adults too. I lay these books out on the library desk. At one end the small, simple babies book and at the other end the complicated, huge reference book. In between we have the three other books. Are you telling me, that just because the babies book is small and simple, it must evolve into such a huge, complicated book? This theory that the adult book evolved from the babies book is completely plausable? Why, because evolution has just presented itself to me as fact, therefore this must be fact. Utter, utter nonsense, I'm sure you will agree. Here's something interesting to think about with the books, the reference book was written in 1968, the old Atlas in 1981, the novel in 1989, the childrens' book in 1992 and the babies book in 1999. So, even timewise, the theory would be impossible, just like the timeplan in evolution.

There is simply no other way of dealing reasonably with the evidence we have. Of course, one might deny (as some do) that the layers of the earth represent a succession of very lengthy epochs and claim, for example, that the Grand Canyon was created in a matter of days, but this surely violates scientific observation as much as does the claim that, say, vertebrates just, well, appeared one day out of a spontaneous combination of chemicals.

But evolution remains a theory. The theory of evolution. Where is the evidence for this spontaneous combination? My example shows how rediculous this whole theory is. But where did the chemicals come from, I can tell you where God came from, He was always here, He is God, but where did these famous 50 amino acids come from?

To make the claim for the truth of evolution in this way is to assert nothing about how it might occur.

Evolution first has to prove itself as a theory, a plausible theory, something which it has failed in up to now. I wouldn't bank on evolution becoming a theory, let alone truth anytime soon.

Darwin provides one answer (through natural selection), but others have been suggested, too (including some which see a divine agency at work in the transforming process). The above argument is intended, however, to demonstrate that the general principle of evolution is, given the scientific evidence, logically unassailable and that, thus, the concept is a law of nature as truly established as is, say, gravitation.

Evolution has never been "truly established", as it cannot explain where everything evolved from.

To deny evolution (as defined here) is on the same level of logic as to deny the fact that if someone jumps off the balcony of a high rise apartment and carries no special apparatus, she will fall towards the ground.

Creation is how we can explain the origin of the universe, so this is strange, that evolution wants to reject a completely plausible, 100% un-disprovable theory of Creation. It seems to me more like to deny Creation is on the same level of logic as to deny the fact that if someone jumps off the balcony of a high rise apartment and carries no special apparatus, she will fall towards the ground. Your example, but it's like that if you deny Creation.

That scientific certainty makes the widespread rejection of evolution in our modern age something of a puzzle (but that's a subject for another essay). In a modern liberal democracy, of course, one is perfectly free to reject that conclusion, but one is not legitimately able to claim that such a rejection is a reasonable scientific stance.

[I] I choose to reject this theory of evolution, as it has provided no scientific evidence, merely contradictions. Why was I linked to this page in the first place, it doesn't even touch on trying to disprove Creation, because it can't, unlike how Creationists can disprove Evolution.

Evolutions a good film :D

And Creationists do have proof? Would be nice to see that FF.

Nice linkage, Panda.

Forest Fan wrote:
> Evolutionists don't have that.

Yawn.

[URL]http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm[/URL]

Evolutionists don't have that.

Yup. And to end it, they'd need proof of something.

It's the big debate.