Why Darwinism is wrong

Yo.I was reading this, and I got interested. Yeah, that's usually how things start.So, various evolutionists have given me their opinions on evolution. What they all agreed on was this: it is a random process.I responded to one person, "Hey, so are we accidents?"He said, "Yeah."I replied crudely, "So, really, what you're saying is that we happened for no reason.""Yeah.""I wanna die."I know that dialogue is similar to a stray dog; it hasn't found its place. But I don't and I won't believe in anything that negates purpose in its purest form. I will not believe that intelligence happened randomly. It defies logic. If I had to believe that, then I don't want to think anymore."But Darwin said so!!"To heaven with Darwin.OK, Admin, do your worst.

I know you would come with the "typical creationist" crap.Anyway, I don't really want to die. Idiot.It is immature and illogical to think that nothing has purpose. I said that if nothing had purpose and placement, THEN I want to die.I do realize that randomness is an everyday occurrence. If there was no randomness, then I would be able to predict the future quite accurately, if not 100%.The concept of randomness needs no explanation, because any [legitimate] scientist should know that as a fundamental concept. However, I DO NOT believe that everything is a big accident.I love you guys.

Evidence of what? I get all kinds of fustian replies from people.They barely know what THEY'RE talking about.And what conclusion do you say I'm jumping to? You're being so nitpicky that you overlook what I said (which actually agrees with what you're saying) in favor of a condescending and malevolent perspective on my statements. I do believe in randomness, darn it.I JUST DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE WORLD IS THE RESULT OF AN ACCIDENT.Go ahead, skewer that statement with whatever you have. That's not making your point any stronger.

Sidelined,Is it wrong for me to think that way? How would you feel if you realized that you're living just to die? Why are you there in the first place?You may not realize this, but I'm not the only one who makes that statement. Go ahead and make a sarcastic comment.I believe everything is precious; in fact, I appreciate other things more than myself. I believe that appreciation and love are the progenitors of happiness. Of course, something that trivial can not be found easily in this world.You are correct in saying that the universe does/does not care. The reason for that is that there is no reason within the universe as a whole. Not only does it not reason; it lacks the ability to do so.Infinite life would truly be a tragedy, like an untimely death.I'm saying this to say that life does have purpose, which many do not believe. I was once a hardcore evolutionist myself. I'm not believing something for the sake of believing it; I believe that which is most logical and consistent, and the theory of evolution does neither.Okay, maybe here and there.But that is the reasoning behind my thoughts. Hate it if you want to. But few recognize truth when there are many lies to believe.This message has been edited by TheNewGuy03, 04-30-2005 11:58 PM

Again, I ask, what evidence of "non-deterministic processes"? Nothing occurs without a means to an end. What occurs during natural selection and Darwin's other observations? They do things because something else must happen, or else, that species will die out.Besides, there is no evidence that divine evidence did NOT shape the outcome of events. To me, the presence of design and intricacy indicates more of an externally operating intelligence than the evolutionary model does. Given, there are a myriad of facts in evolutionary theory, but that does not negate what is traditionally called "divine intervention."Before you argue in favor of something, be sure you know its foundation. What does "evolution" mean? Why do YOU believe evolution? A building without a solid foundation will not stand; the same applies to an argument.

Dear edge,I know my reason to live. And I also know this: I have not come to this earth to die.How do I agree with evolutionists by saying that genuine love is hard to find? You have no backup for your statement, considering you are pitting a concept with something that is empirical.Also, I realize that my ideas will always coincide with many people's beliefs, regardless of their logical alignment. What you don't realize is that creation science actually agrees with most of evolutionary theory, sans macroevolution.Death has meaning as well. All things, both fortunate and unfortunate, have a place. That is the meaning of existence.I've spoken to many people (evolutionists and creationists alike) who believe that life has no meaning. It is not limited to evolutionists; it applies to people in all cultures.Don't base your statements on opinions. One must pick apart his/her own arguments in order to better understand others'. With that said, I will leave you to ponder that.

That is true, simply because in this case there are only two options: survival or death. In other cases, it is not as simple.We have lots of evidence, but evidence is not enough, and evidence should not negate other evidence; one of them has to be wrong. You can't prove a concept with laws of physics. It is, well, physically and logically impossible.Well, of course you believe evolution. And it's not because you assert it so vehemently. It's because people have to believe something and have opinions, and that is man's downfall.A change in allele frequencies does not denote macroevolution. It is a fact that alleles do change over time, due to environmental adaptation. But one species does not become another species. Stick to the basics.And you are right: something without evidence is not solid. An assertion is not enough to become fact, even though we observe that in human thought patterns everyday. What is most important, however, is that the evidence has to support the assertion, and vice versa. One can not exist without the other.

I never threw God in this. Don't make any assumptions.I do have a need to eliminate uncertainty, like anyone. That's one of the reasons we are here: to learn and to enhance knowledge.A vehement assertion is simply a strong statement. It has no traces of extremism. If that weren't the case, we would all be fanatics.Microevolution and macroevolution are not the same thing. Microevolution is variations within a species. Macroevolution is on a larger scale. Frankly, experiments throughout history have actually proved that wrong.It is true that all things start the same, but their genetic makeup does not permit them to become anything other than what their genetic makeup permits them to be. The obvious difference between the two zygotes is that their genetic makeups are different, which results in two different organisms. Nothing will change that.

So...It's sad to see that people settle for mediocrity, especially when it comes to believing what others say. By the way, I'm not paranoid.The vehement assertion I was referring to was in your other post, not the most recent one.You seem to have a penchant for giving people bad examples. I never said things don't grow or change. I said that one species does not turn into another. That is the nature of genetics.A mutation is not another species. It is a modification of an already-established species. And most mutations are bad. What is the likelihood of a successful mistake, dear Frog?"Quite the opposite. Experiments have demonstrated the fundamental accuracy of the evolutionary model in all respects, including common ancestry."That's quite funny, because, in essence, you have destroyed the claims of Pasteur, Mendel, and other scientists. Even the evolutionists would disagree with you.You are doing what I have mentioned earlier: applying a valid assertion to fallacious claim.You are correct: random mutation does occur, and natural selection does occur. So does the survival of the fittest, and various other theories of Darwinian origin. Just not macroevolution.I hope you realize that all you have said proves evolution on a small scale.Oh yeah, it's "Merriam," not "Miriam." Just thought I'd let you know.Thanks for the afterthoughts. Anything more? I'm always listening.

"Everybody dies."
Thanks for the revelation.The biggest difference between macroevolution is the fact that macroevolution presupposes common ancestry, and microevolution denotes that species change within themselves, not become other species. I keep saying the same thing; why do you guys twist my words?Man.

What other definition could "species" have?It is a group of organisms having common traits and qualities. It could only have one meaning, my friend.Quote:
"It's my understanding that these days most creation "science" groups have had to grudgingly admit that speciation occurs, simply because there is so much field and lab evidence for it. They have now just moved the goalposts to say that genus or family level evolution cannot occur."First, you assume that I am most creation scientists, when, in fact, I actually disagree with most of their claims.By the way, you are correct in saying that speciation does occur...within another species.It is definitely a distant possibility that one species can become another over long periods of time, but, of course, one would have to assume that there was "a long period of time," and frankly, that has been observed by no human.You're right, mutations usually do not occur in entire species, but in individuals. Nonetheless, the same rules apply in terms of mutations.And what is a "neutral" mutation? Wouldn't that just be classified as a normal individual? Also, can you give me an example of a beneficial mutation?A mutation is simply a variation. You are most definitely correct in saying that mutations occur in all humans, because all humans change. But in biological and medical terms, a mutation is not a good thing.You've skewed the definition of "mutation," my friend.

Dear Mr. Modulous,There was once an experiment done in which a sample of rotting meat was placed within a container. One was left open, and one was sealed. The open container contained new bacteria (and fly eggs), and the sealed one didn't.Of course you know of Pasteur's famous "bottleneck bacteria" experiment, in which the bacteria trapped within the curves of the tube were not destroyed by the heat of the broth.Why do I say that? It [the first experiment] dispelled the evolutionary rumor that life came from non-life (also known as abiogenesis).And Pasteur's experiment proved that heat kills, not creates, bacteria.There was also an experiment done (I forgot when) in which a certain group of elements were mixed, and the result was the compound that is most prevalent within the earth. If I still had the book, I could tell you the guy's name and the official title of the experiment, but I don't recall. Sorry. If you really desire to know who and when, you'd have to do a search for it.Anyway, the mixture of these elements did not do its job of "creating life," but only creating the environs in which animals have the ability to live.And how exactly would the disproving of macroevolution be anti-science? You act as if the very focus of science is macroevolution.This message has been edited by TheNewGuy03, 05-02-2005 11:49 PM

Oh sidelined, I pity you.In essence, you say we live just to die.The world is rife with presuppositions, my friend. Get used to it. Just like theories and the remainder of the human thought process presupposes its facts? Like we presuppose man came from a "common apelike ancestor"?Man can not give itself purpose. The reason for this is because we can't give ourselves anything but what has been available for us in the first place. What have you given yourself that has not already existed?Where do you think intelligence comes from?And it is horribly apparent that we do all these things you've listed. It's not new to me. Crap happens.People require beliefs. A person without beliefs is an empty soul. There are things you believe in. You think, and you perform all of your actions based on your own beliefs. You are not a puppet.You assume that the world is purposeless. You have purpose, yet you do not believe it. That is your own dealing. This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 05-03-2005 12:24 AM

They all say the same things. Lucy doesn't cut it.What you don't realize is that people in different parts of the world have different shaped heads, and that the bones could have been of younger humans, and quite possibly of other animals. I'm not saying that the argument in favor of common ancestry of apes and humans is INVALID, but it is not consistent considering that we don't continue to find this type of stuff.Just analyze all the evidence.

This could go on forever. I'll just end it, and have a more poignant discussion with someone who has solid facts.Love,
~The Kid~