Atheist delusion

[theplains]

I felt the following movie posted on youtube is an effective and non-confrontational way to show why evolution
is impossible.

No particular questions to ask.  Just wondering if someone had already seen and what you thought.

Thanks,
Jim

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, theplains said:

I felt the following movie posted on youtube is an effective and non-confrontational way to show why evolution
is impossible.

No particular questions to ask.  Just wondering if someone had already seen and what you thought.

Thanks,
Jim

I enjoyed this, fun to watch. Things do evolve, and continue to do so, but this does not mean there is no God and that all things were not created by the hand of God, because they were. Indeed all things were created, and male and female in the image of God, just not in six days as many argue. It is clear that the earth is billions of years old, and that God required time to create it, or too make it prepared, or ready for man. But, no matter the how, we all know they why, and that all things denote there is a God. 

I am a believer, and "Faith" is not a cop out, it is what is needed to know and understand to the truth of all things. The truth is, there is a God, and as stated in John 17:3, "For this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the true and living God, and Jesus Christ who thou hath sent" (hope I quoted it correctly).  

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

I felt the following movie posted on youtube is an effective and non-confrontational way to show why evolution
is impossible.

No particular questions to ask.  Just wondering if someone had already seen and what you thought.

Thanks,
Jim

Why can't God create evolution? It seems to design every plant and creature to bring forth after its own kind. Clearly DNA mutates tho. If you believe we grow based upon our DNA and that our DNA mutates it seems you have to concede evolution - even if not always visible. 

I enjoyed the movie and gave it a like. I believe the current majority scientific model has some major problems. We can't even explain the creation of stars or planets. We have seen many stars die, but can't affirm or explain the creation of a single star. Matter in space seems to repel other matter rather than to conglomerate. We have yet to map a single star which appeared from gas and dust out of a void in space. There is not a single star on a star chart we can point to and say this is when it was born. Planets suffer from the same problem. Current models fail to explain how planets form from matter out in space. Models do predict gaseous planets will form in the outer parts of a solar system, but that is about all they seem to be able to predict. There is no successful model to predict the formation of the planets. Nor can the universe be created from nothing. Even if there was a big bang, current models all predict something preexisted it, since matter and energy cannot come from nothing - scientifically. 
 

I think the movie asks probing questions which will do some good.

[longview]

I watched some of the movie and appreciated some of the questions posed by the interviewer.  I thought the movie was too pedantic but it made me recall some some of the long running debates on this board such as distinctions between evolution and abiogenesis with some claiming that they are completely separate.  I asserted that abiogenesis should be considered a fully enclosed subset of evolution.

Abiogenesis is defined to be a random process by which cells gradually arose from "non-living" matter.  I believe scientist should test for "primitive" RNAs in their test tubes to see what sequence of events has to occur for the "next step" to happen.  They might be able to assemble a simple RNA using molecular manipulation.  Consider the differences between cell, bacteria and virus:

The similarities would be that they both are virulent organisms, and they both do not have a nucleus. 

1. Bacteria have ribosomes whereas viruses do not
2. Bacteria are unicellular but viruses are not (because they are considered as nonliving)
3. Bacteria has DNA and RNA floating freely in cytoplasm, it has a cell wall and a cell membrane, whereas a virus is simply DNA or RNA enclosed within a coat of protein
4. Bacteria can be beneficial (because we have helpful bacteria in our gut) whereas viruses are typically not beneficial. 
5. bacteria goes through binary fission to reproduce which is a form of asexual reproduction, and the virus takes over the host cell and causes it to make copies of the virus and destroys the host cell in the process of spreading. 
6. Bacteria cells are larger then viruses.

http://www.allaboutscience.org/abiogenesis.htm

Abiogenesis – A brief history
Even though Darwin himself focused on the origin of species, some scientists have tried to apply the concept of evolution to the first life to form the concept of abiogenesis. In 1924, Russian biochemist Alexander Oparin proposed that living cells arose gradually from nonliving matter through a sequence of chemical reactions. According to Oparin, gases present in the atmosphere of primitive earth, when induced by lightening or other sources of energy, would react to form simple organic compounds. These compounds would subsequently self-assemble into increasingly complex molecules such as proteins. These, in turn, would organize themselves into living cells. 
In 1953, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey tested Oparin’s hypothesis by conducting an experiment that attempted to simulate the atmospheric conditions of primitive earth. In their experiment, water boiled into vapor at the bottom of a flask and then passed through an apparatus, combining with ammonia, methane, and hydrogen. They then subjected the resulting mixture to a 50,000-volt-spark before cooling and collecting it in a trap at the bottom of the apparatus. When Miller and Urey examined the resulting tar-like substance, they found a collection of amino acids, the building blocks of life.
Abiogenesis – Conclusion
Clearly to get from the Miller-Urey experiment to a living cell by unguided materialistic processes requires that improbabilities be stacked upon improbabilities. For this reason, Dean Kenyon rightly concludes: “It is an enormous problem, how you could get together in one tiny, sub-microscopic volume of the primitive ocean all of the hundreds of different molecular components you would need in order for a self-replicating cycle to be established.”

[The Nehor]

I have seen it. Was not impressed. It is a "God of the gaps" argument. Does not mean it is not true but it proves nothing. The idea that complexity requires a creator might be true but comparing a book to DNA is not conclusive.

The movie then jumps from claiming they have disproved evolution to saying that because it is disproved the Bible must be true. Why not proof that the earth is the corpse of Tiamat? Then we get a conversion story. Interviews with people being told they know it is true and they just want to deny it or just prefer to watch porn. That is from the LaHaye style of Christian preaching. Everyone secretly believes Christianity but denies it out of some strain of perversity. It is a crutch so that Jesus wiping out the world in their interesting eschatology seems justified.

It is pandering to the faithful. Any atheist who could be convinced by it was a pretty faithless atheist to start with.  

[DJBrown]

On 9/4/2017 at 2:21 PM, theplains said:

I felt the following movie posted on youtube is an effective and non-confrontational way to show why evolution
is impossible.

No particular questions to ask.  Just wondering if someone had already seen and what you thought.

Thanks,
Jim

Having graduated with a B.S. in molecular biology and a graduate degree in the sciences, I think I understand evolution.  I think the evidences associated with evolution demonstrate the following three things:

1.  The earth is much older than previously thought.

2.  The diversity of living creatures on planet earth is greater than previously thought.

3.  There is very significant similarity in structure and function in those creatures.  

I do NOT believe the evidences as they now stand support the big conclusions of the theory of evolution (i.e. present species developed from significantly less complex species of the past, etc.)

I do find it very interesting that two very significant movements or areas of enlightenment came about at the same time:

A.  The belief that all human beings on planet earth are literal sons and daughters of a Father and Mother in heaven.  (Joseph Smith's 'First Vision' in 1820 and subsequent visits from heavenly messengers)

B. All of those sons and daughters of Heavenly Parents are related.  The spirit of Elijah draws the hearts of people to search out their ancestors so that the families of mankind can be bound for eternity through the priesthood keys. (Elijah visited the Kirtland temple April 3, 1836 and restored the Priesthood keys of sealing families together).

And the beliefs that seem directly counter to A and B:

C. The belief that all human beings on planet earth are descendants of very simple, primitive life forms that arose from chance and randomness. (Charles Darwin began speculation on primitive species developing or transitioning into more complex species around 1837)

D. Many scientific fields exert considerable time, money, and resources to connect modern species (including homo sapiens) to past, more primitive species in a type of evolutionary ancestry (Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published in 1859 and has become the unifying intellectual framework for many of the biological sciences).

While many will see this as a false dichotomy, I do not believe the big conclusion of the theory of evolution that man evolved from more primitive species.  And I think people should feel very comfortable in rejecting that conclusion, even if they don't have all the answers.  

[thesometimesaint]

On 9/4/2017 at 3:17 PM, RevTestament said:

Why can't God create evolution? It seems to design every plant and creature to bring forth after its own kind. Clearly DNA mutates tho. If you believe we grow based upon our DNA and that our DNA mutates it seems you have to concede evolution - even if not always visible. 

I enjoyed the movie and gave it a like. I believe the current majority scientific model has some major problems. We can't even explain the creation of stars or planets. We have seen many stars die, but can't affirm or explain the creation of a single star. Matter in space seems to repel other matter rather than to conglomerate. We have yet to map a single star which appeared from gas and dust out of a void in space. There is not a single star on a star chart we can point to and say this is when it was born. Planets suffer from the same problem. Current models fail to explain how planets form from matter out in space. Models do predict gaseous planets will form in the outer parts of a solar system, but that is about all they seem to be able to predict. There is no successful model to predict the formation of the planets. Nor can the universe be created from nothing. Even if there was a big bang, current models all predict something preexisted it, since matter and energy cannot come from nothing - scientifically. 
 

I think the movie asks probing questions which will do some good.

While there is still plenty to learn about the formation of stars and planets. We do have a pretty good explanation for how God did it. Dust, gravity, and time.

SEE http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/discovering_planets_beyond/how-do-planets-form

The Big Bang was something. An infinitely small, infinitely hot, ball of energy. E=MC(Squared).

[thesometimesaint]

36 minutes ago, DJBrown said:

Having graduated with a B.S. in molecular biology and a graduate degree in the sciences, I think I understand evolution.  I think the evidences associated with evolution demonstrate the following three things:

1.  The earth is much older than previously thought.

2.  The diversity of living creatures on planet earth is greater than previously thought.

3.  There is very significant similarity in structure and function in those creatures.  

I do NOT believe the evidences as they now stand support the big conclusions of the theory of evolution (i.e. present species developed from significantly less complex species of the past, etc.)

I do find it very interesting that two very significant movements or areas of enlightenment came about at the same time:

A.  The belief that all human beings on planet earth are literal sons and daughters of a Father and Mother in heaven.  (Joseph Smith's 'First Vision' in 1820 and subsequent visits from heavenly messengers)

B. All of those sons and daughters of Heavenly Parents are related.  The spirit of Elijah draws the hearts of people to search out their ancestors so that the families of mankind can be bound for eternity through the priesthood keys. (Elijah visited the Kirtland temple April 3, 1836 and restored the Priesthood keys of sealing families together).

And the beliefs that seem directly counter to A and B:

C. The belief that all human beings on planet earth are descendants of very simple, primitive life forms that arose from chance and randomness. (Charles Darwin began speculation on primitive species developing or transitioning into more complex species around 1837)

D. Many scientific fields exert considerable time, money, and resources to connect modern species (including homo sapiens) to past, more primitive species in a type of evolutionary ancestry (Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published in 1859 and has become the unifying intellectual framework for many of the biological sciences).

While many will see this as a false dichotomy, I do not believe the big conclusion of the theory of evolution that man evolved from more primitive species.  And I think people should feel very comfortable in rejecting that conclusion, even if they don't have all the answers.  

That is an appeal to pure freaking magic.

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

While there is still plenty to learn about the formation of stars and planets. We do have a pretty good explanation for how God did it. Dust, gravity, and time.

SEE http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/discovering_planets_beyond/how-do-planets-form

I am aware of the theory, but there are no current models which work to show how a star or planet forms. We are at this stage: well, a bunch of dust and gas must collapse into a ball. That's all nice and good, but that doesn't explain HOW it happens. Current models don't predict the outcome. Nor can we point to a spot in space and say there was no star here and now there is. We can see stars in dust clouds, but not one example of one lighting up. 

Quote

The Big Bang was something. An infinitely small, infinitely hot, ball of energy. E=MC(Squared).

Which again defies current models. There are major problems with the Big Bang theory which have not been worked out. Not the least of which is how does all that matter escape a black hole so massive no matter or light can theoretically escape? The theory is largely based on an observed expansion of the galaxies. However, not all the galaxies locations and light shifts are accounted for by the model, so now we get unknown explanations like dark matter and energy. I am no longer convinced by the Big Bang Theory. We may not know all the properties of light sufficiently to account for the theory.

[The Nehor]

31 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I am aware of the theory, but there are no current models which work to show how a star or planet forms. We are at this stage: well, a bunch of dust and gas must collapse into a ball. That's all nice and good, but that doesn't explain HOW it happens. Current models don't predict the outcome. Nor can we point to a spot in space and say there was no star here and now there is. We can see stars in dust clouds, but not one example of one lighting up. 

Which again defies current models. There are major problems with the Big Bang theory which have not been worked out. Not the least of which is how does all that matter escape a black hole so massive no matter or light can theoretically escape? The theory is largely based on an observed expansion of the galaxies. However, not all the galaxies locations and light shifts are accounted for by the model, so now we get unknown explanations like dark matter and energy. I am no longer convinced by the Big Bang Theory. We may not know all the properties of light sufficiently to account for the theory.

It happens gravity accumulates stuff together. If there is enough it ignites into a star. If not you end up with a brown dwarf. A Now or future star will accumulate chunks of matter orbiting. Over massive timescales these bits hit each other and create planets.

Also the Big Bang does not posit that the whole thing starts with a black hole. If anything it kind of correlates with the theoretical white hole, believed to be an impossibility under the laws of this universe. Even with that there are differences.

[Monster]

I think in most scientific circles the theory of evolution has moved beyond a theory to reality.Sure we do not have all the answers about evolution or how stars were born, but we have some very good theories backed up by science and observation. If you want to say God did it all I think that is fine but then you move to a much less position of understanding. There is no verifiable way to observe God. 

Just because you can not prove every last detail of a scientific model does it make it wrong. Just like you can not prove the existence of God does not make him cease to exist. The difference to me is one is measurable and observable to a great degree. The other is entirely speculation and requires faith to begin to believe. Can the two coexist? I think so, but we should not discount either to to bolster our own position. We have to accept the facts even when they run contrary to what we want them to.

[thesometimesaint]

17 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I am aware of the theory, but there are no current models which work to show how a star or planet forms. We are at this stage: well, a bunch of dust and gas must collapse into a ball. That's all nice and good, but that doesn't explain HOW it happens. Current models don't predict the outcome. Nor can we point to a spot in space and say there was no star here and now there is. We can see stars in dust clouds, but not one example of one lighting up. 

Which again defies current models. There are major problems with the Big Bang theory which have not been worked out. Not the least of which is how does all that matter escape a black hole so massive no matter or light can theoretically escape? The theory is largely based on an observed expansion of the galaxies. However, not all the galaxies locations and light shifts are accounted for by the model, so now we get unknown explanations like dark matter and energy. I am no longer convinced by the Big Bang Theory. We may not know all the properties of light sufficiently to account for the theory.

Gravity explains it pretty well. Soon after the Big Bang unequal density produced pockets of higher density thus higher gravity.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

We have actual pictures of star's forming.

SEE https://www.spacetelescope.org/science/formation_of_stars/

Light travels at 186,000 miles  per sec. All you need is something with enough gravity that light  can not go faster than it is pulled back in. IE; A man made space vehicle must travel right around 17,000 miles per hour to escape earth's gravity. Planets have enough gravity to bend light. A Black Hole has enough gravity to bend light enough that light can not escape. Thus it is black.

I eagerly await for the explanation of dark energy and matter. In the meantime I have enough to worry about how normal matter/energy work.

Sure. There is plenty more to learn, but that shouldn't stop us from making scientific theories about it.

 

[DJBrown]

23 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

That is an appeal to pure freaking magic.

Please explain.  Believing in a creation that didn't involve man evolving from more primitive species is "an appeal to pure freaking magic?"

Why do you say that?

[cdowis]

23 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

That is an appeal to pure freaking magic.

And quantum mechanics is indistinguishable from freaking magic.  So what is your point?  

"I don't understand it, so it is magic" or "I don't believe it.... etc"
Methnks a rather vacuous comment.

Edited September 7, 2017 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

9 minutes ago, DJBrown said:

Please explain.  Believing in a creation that didn't involve man evolving from more primitive species is "an appeal to pure freaking magic?"

Why do you say that?

I'll give you an example. Try measuring the length of a football field by using "A Mid-summer's Night dream" by William Shakespeare.

Now for the natural physical evidence of the evolution of man

SEE http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

[cdowis]

On 9/4/2017 at 6:17 PM, RevTestament said:

Why can't God create evolution?

Perhaps evolution is a natural law, and the Creator uses it as He does gravity, etc in the creation process.

[cdowis]

41 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I'll give you an example. Try measuring the length of a football field by using "A Mid-summer's Night dream" by William Shakespeare.

Now for the natural physical evidence of the evolution of man

SEE http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

I noticed an interesting sentence on this page, regarding attempts of Creationists to explain stuff.

"However their explanation is just a brief bit of handwaving that doesn't even begin to resolve any of the above problems."
I assume that you realize the very same observation applies to some "tiny problems" with evolution and the attempts to explain them away.

Anyway, I did no read the entire article, but the argument seemed to be, "Ya'll can't explain this, so that's the proof for evolution."
(The young earthers are not taken seriously here on this forum)

A rather silly and vacuous conclusion, would you not agree.
 

Edited September 7, 2017 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

58 minutes ago, cdowis said:

And quantum mechanics is indistinguishable from freaking magic.  So what is your point?  

"I don't understand it, so it is magic" or "I don't believe it.... etc"
Methnks a rather vacuous comment.

Quantum mechanics isn't pure freaking magic.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

Creationism is pure freaking magic.

SEE

 

[thesometimesaint]

27 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I noticed an interesting sentence on this page, regarding attempts of Creationists to explain stuff.

"However their explanation is just a brief bit of handwaving that doesn't even begin to resolve any of the above problems."
I assume that you realize the very same observation applies to some "tiny problems" with evolution and the attempts to explain them away.

Anyway, I did no read the entire article, but the argument seemed to be, "Ya'll can't explain this, so that's the proof for evolution."
(The young earthers are not taken seriously here on this forum)

A rather silly and vacuous conclusion, would you not agree.
 

No I don't agree. The failure to fully explain something is not the same thing as that thing not existing/happening. IE: Sir Issac Newton didn't have a complete explanation for how the planets maintain their elliptic orbit. That doesn't mean they don't or that now we do know how they do it. 

[DJBrown]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

I'll give you an example. Try measuring the length of a football field by using "A Mid-summer's Night dream" by William Shakespeare.

Now for the natural physical evidence of the evolution of man

SEE http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

The snark factor here pretty much matches that of the responses I always received at the university when studying molecular biology- always condescending and dismissive.  Never really dealing with the fundamental question or point.  

 

[jkwilliams]

On 9/5/2017 at 2:07 AM, The Nehor said:

I have seen it. Was not impressed. It is a "God of the gaps" argument. Does not mean it is not true but it proves nothing. The idea that complexity requires a creator might be true but comparing a book to DNA is not conclusive.

The movie then jumps from claiming they have disproved evolution to saying that because it is disproved the Bible must be true. Why not proof that the earth is the corpse of Tiamat? Then we get a conversion story. Interviews with people being told they know it is true and they just want to deny it or just prefer to watch porn. That is from the LaHaye style of Christian preaching. Everyone secretly believes Christianity but denies it out of some strain of perversity. It is a crutch so that Jesus wiping out the world in their interesting eschatology seems justified.

It is pandering to the faithful. Any atheist who could be convinced by it was a pretty faithless atheist to start with.  

Amen. It did have some striking shots of nature, though. 

[Daniel2]

Back in my days as a strongly-devout member of the LDS church and while taking a class at BYU on Organic Evolution, I was impressed by my professor's strong testimony of the LDS Faith and his strong assurance that organic evolution was, is, and continues to be a true principle. As a young, fervent RM who was trying to make sense of how science and religion could both be true, he took the time to meet with me one-on-one on a few different occasions to discuss my concerns.  His belief was that Organic Evolution did not conflict with the truth claims of the LDS Faith, including the concept that man evolved from lower forms of life, and he shared with me that religion professors often clashed with science professors on the subject, but that based on his experience, virtually every science/biology professor at the Y unequivocally upheld and believed in the concept of Organic Evolution, including it as the vehicle for the creation of mankind.

He shared several BYU publications with me that may be helpful to some here seeking to balance their Faith with evolution (click on the title for the links):

The Mormon Myth of Evil Evolution by Michael R. Ash

The Church and Evolution - Publications - Brigham Young University

Thoughts on Mormonism, Evolution, and Brigham Young University

 

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Quantum mechanics isn't pure freaking magic.

I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. ~ Richard Feynman

Also, 

Quote

Quantum theory is 'spooky', as Einstein expressed it, in the sense that, at the microscopic level, the world does not behave in the way that everyday objects have led us to regard as common sense. [the very  definition of magic]

The mathematics of quantum theory in unquestionably correct and the theory's predictions are probably the most accurate in all science. BUT, however the mathematics is interpreted, nonsensical behaviour is predicted .....   [freaking magic]

http://www.aske-skeptics.org.uk/magic_of_quantum_physics.html

You can wave your hands and jump up and down, but the problem does not go away.

The atheist rejects god in a desperate attempt to find certainty, but such certainty is only an illusion.  They sold their soul for a mess of pottage.

Edited September 7, 2017 by cdowis

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

 

 

I agree that Evolution, like the law of gravity, does not preclude the existence of God.  It only presents the challenge of understanding how it was used in the creation process.  The "god of gaps" will always exist despite the "faith" of some evolutionists that all will eventually be resolved and explained.

Just one question for the narrator, are you aware of the research on peer reviews of research?

Finally, your description of Creationism is not consistent with the LDS view of creation -- we do not believe in "poof" nor golums.

Edited September 7, 2017 by cdowis

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, cdowis said:

Perhaps evolution is a natural law, and the Creator uses it as He does gravity, etc in the creation process.

I believe evolution is a product of genetic mutation, epigenetics, environmental factors, and maybe some other things. I think God may stick His creative finger in there from time to time. It's part of his creative process. DNA is His puppy.