How Fossils Overturned Evolution - Harun Yahya Documentation - 1/7

[Joanbuggy]

Also, this video is not letting me create my own thoughts on evolution. By saying the "myth" of evolution, you're implying that it is not real, however, a journalist/narrator should be neutral, not shoving their own opinion down my throat.

[Joanbuggy]

Seriously? Can't the religious nuts just please try to keep an open mind about evolution, and can the atheists just respect that some people just don't want to believe in evolution? I am so tired of people saying how if you believe in evolution you must be evil, and if you believe in God then you must be crazy! For the record, I'm a christian that absolutely loves science and the theory of evolution. I don't see why you can't believe in a creator and evolution at the same time.

[tangerinetigerr]

Evil-ution is a nasty religion; it is a pack of lies

bundled together, with no Truth found anywhere

in it. It wraps itself up in pretty--pretty ugly

that is--packaging that promises answers to everything,

when it doesn't even have even one foundational

evil-uotionary frog leg to stand on! TODAY's

cuss word to evil-utionists: fruit flies!

[Gothguy47]

Sources?

[Atharkas]

Fwe he he he he, less than 2 minutes in the videos and there are already several mistakes. Man, the one who did this fails in biology!

[meminchii]

@Atharkas What mistakes if I may ask? :) (not judging, just wondering ^:^)

[Atharkas]

@meminchii

1. Cells arose by chance, which is not true since it is via natural selection.

2. Evolution is supported by no evidence. I guess the fossil records, the genomes, molecular comparisons and endogenous retrovirus do not exist then.

3. Darwin's ideas were based on observations, but not only his since he was in contact with other great naturalists of his time.

And people wonder why Harun Yahya is not taken seriously anywhere. He should actually learn what he's trying to disprove. =_=

[meminchii]

@Atharkas nr 2.. But did those scientifical evidences come when he discovered the evolution. i mean, was it by help of them that he discovered them, or did the scientific prooves come laater?

[Atharkas]

@meminchii

There were already fossils prior to Darwin's time that were found and naturalists around the world had taken notice of the different species, drawing and writing their observation, dissecting and trying to learn how their body functioned.

However, Darwin based his idea upon the observations made on his voyage on the beagle, more specifically in the galapagos.

In science, you don't start with a conclusion (ex : evolution is true) and make the observation work with it.

[MayonR]

@Atharkas Paleontologists themselves of the highest stature have already stated that, no respected scientist would use the fossil record to prove evolution. When fossils are pulled up and claimed as evolution, it doesn't even fit the criteria to be considered a fossil intermediary by evolutionist themselves. Sure you can find some who do in the hope that it will advance this belief, but it still doesn't fit the standard that was set. And yes I can demonstrate this.

[Atharkas]

Sorry, but people who finds fossils don't claim it's evolution, but observe the biological structure and it helps them to understand how these life forms existed. But yes, they do show the changes that occured through generations in a population if several fossils of the same population is found on different strata.

Evolution and common ancestry is proven by the comparison of the genome as well as common ERVs and molecular comparison. Learn what you're trying to disprove before saying nonsense..

[MayonR]

@Atharkas First of all I would suggest to simply state your case instead of ordering someone to do something or calling what the very scientist who are involved in the core of this issue "nonsense". Because you sound like some kind of indoctrinated University kid. The very science institute that broke the genome code and assembled the map Gene Myers."We don’t understand ourselves yet . . . [t]here’s still a metaphysical, magical element."

[Atharkas]

@MayonR

I'm sorry, but is there a point to this rant? How is explaining to someone a part of history "being an indoctrinated university kid". It's just an explanation, nothing more. If you are feeling threatened by that, it's your own problem. I am aware that the creator of the Human Genome project is a creationists, but believe is irrelevant in science. Despite being started by a creationists, the human genome proved common ancestry and evolution, is that so wrong to your eyes?

[MayonR]

@Atharkas While I certainly will not order you to do anything. I think it is somewhat ignorant to tell me to learn something, in the attempt to devalue me, since my statement in itself was not fallacious. As if somehow you are superior to all of the highest level of scientists in this world who believe in creation based on their research. In fact there exists many non believing scientist who have arrived to their conclusion and became Christians.

[Atharkas]

@MayonR

You forgot to take into account that they were scientist PRIOR to have an interest in science due to their education by their parents. Religious is only a sub-section of a culture and rarely does a child have a faith that is different than the ones of his parents. And how is it ignorant to ask someone to actually learn about what they are trying to prove wrong when their main arguments were debunked decades ago?

And sorry, but there is no evidence of creation resulting from research.

[MayonR]

@Atharkas [[ And sorry, but there is no evidence of creation resulting from research. ]] Sure there is. You just attribute it to evolution. And yes, scientist and scholars have become Christian as a result of their research. If a parent is a Christian, that does not make a child who grows up a Christian. A Christian is someone who has given their lives over to Jesus Christ. That would be like calling a nation christian, when a nation cannot be born again. It is a personal decision.

[Atharkas]

@MayonR

Hum, small mistake here Mayon, evolution only explains the diversity of life forms, nothing else. You can't attribute planet formation to evolution, nor nuclear fusions in stars nor the gravitational field of the moon making the tides. So, my claim still stand.

Also, sorry, but there is a correlation between the parent's religious belief and the child's religious belief, you cannot deny it. And all denomination of the numerous christian sects all fall under the title of Christian.

[MayonR]

@Atharkas [[ necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characteristics belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown. This is a definition by evolutionists. Of course there are many on the fringes itching in their seats to cry out proof on even less standards.

[Atharkas]

@MayonR

Sorry, but it seems there are a LOT of holes in your definition, the start at least.

Could you copy it completely? Because I doubt it is the definition of evolution or speciation. (Also there is no such thing as an evolutionist, that is a word invented by theists).

[MayonR]

@Atharkas [[ And seriously, don't bring another fictional character ]] Jesus was no less fictional than Socrates or Alexander the great and this is by good scholar work. Of courses on the fringes there are always people who make outrageous claims.

[Atharkas]

@MayonR

Yeshua might have existed, no doubt about it since legends usually are taken from somewhere. But the whole virgin birth, crucifixion and rising from the dead things are copied from many other myths. Sorry, just do a quick search about the numerous deities born out of a virgin, you'll be surprised.

And the fictional character was satan.

[MayonR]

@Atharkas [[Yeshua might have existed, no doubt about it ]] Wow, people love denying this one. Though the claims have been debunked by comparative religion scholars over 100 years ago. For integrity sake do not go by the claims of Zeitgeist because the claims they make are a big mess and it might pollute any work that is respected of you. Some of it's claims do not exist in the Bible and even some of for example Horus were completely off. Non believers of Christianity even admit this.

[Atharkas]

@MayonR

What's Zeitgeist? But Yeshua's claim of special birth and death are mere copies from other religions, sorry. You may believe in them, but it do not make it true.

[MayonR]

@Atharkas [[ Yeshua's claim of special birth and death are mere copies from other religions]] There was never any signs of any pagan religion ever found in 1st Century Palestine. The life of Jesus is detailed with so many specific names of people and places that it remains a historical record. Some of the claims never even occurred in these supposed religions and as I said some are not even found to be claimed in the Bible.

[Atharkas]

@MayonR

"The life of Jesus is detailed with so many specific names of people and places that it remains a historical record"

Like what? The conflicting genealogy in two of the evangiles?

And to be an historical record, it needs to be corroborated by other sources than those of the religion.

The names of place and people can be used in fictions, otherwise it would mean a certain Sherlock Holmes really did live in London at the end of the 19th century.

[MayonR]

@Atharkas [[ But the whole virgin birth, crucifixion and rising from the dead things are copied from many other myths. Sorry, just do a quick search about the numerous deities born out of a virgin, you'll be surprised.

And the fictional character was satan.]] No need to do a quick search because they have already been debunked over 100 years ago by comparative religious scholars. Old new, is new news, to new people.

[MayonR]

@Atharkas [[ And all denomination of the numerous christian sects all fall under the title of Christian ]] If you call Islam a denomination of Christian then you just take all meaning out of words. I happen to know at least 50 Muslims who have converted to born again Christianity. I know Buddhists, and just about any religion who have converted to Christianity.

[Atharkas]

@MayonR

Uh.. no, Islam falls under the denomination of one of the three abrahamic religions (judaism, christianity and islam).

And sorry, but it's rather meaningless to trade one fictional character to another.

[MayonR]

@Atharkas [[ Uh.. no, Islam falls under the denomination of one of the three abrahamic religions (judaism, christianity and islam).]] Haha Abrahamic root does not make Judaism or Islam into Christianity my friend. You know this but you depend on this confusion which is quite silly. And I'm pretty sure you know this. Still plenty are leaving all the pantheistic religions or any religion for that matter and converting to Christianity such as Ravi Zacharias.

[Atharkas]

@MayonR

As I said : Main group : Abrahamic religion (Judaism, christianity and islam). You take the christianity group and you find many sub division : catholic, protestant, mormon, penthecotists, adventist, ect.

It seems you misunderstood my words. And so far you've used two fallacies (fallacies of numbers and fallacies of authority) which makes your claims null. Sorry.

[MayonR]

@Atharkas [[ christian sects all fall under the title of Christian]] Your quote not mine. And Islam and Judaism does not fall into the category you stated above. And sure there are denominations which make emphasis of certain aspects of Christianity. While Catholicism was started by Eusebius for Constantine to control these Christians. Instead later these Christians were killed by Catholics with their Bibles for their refusal to convert. Purely political religion created by Satan.

[Atharkas]

@MayonR

Yes, Judaism and Islam do not fall under christianity, as I stated before.

And seriously, don't bring another fictional character into this fray.

And I'm still waiting for you to tell me what you think evolution, natural selection and speciation are.

[MayonR]

@Atharkas [[ evolution, natural selection and speciation ]] They are classifications by man to describe their beliefs. What you may call Natural selection others may call adaptation. they are just different devises to classify things. At one time all flying animals were classified as birds.

[Atharkas]

Er...I see you do not know then.

Let's start with the definition of evolution :

In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.[The process is called natural selection where those better adapted reproduce and pass their genes while those who are not die without reproducing] When a population splits into smaller groups, these groups evolve independently [That's speciation] and develop into new species.

Do you understand?

[MayonR]

@Atharkas i understand but you have to admit that even though you may believe in it, that last part has not been demonstrated but is speculated. And that is according to scientist from your camp. Such as the quote I provided by Pierre Nuoy if incorrect name just google the quote. I don't want to go back because I'll have to retype my comment. And I admire your honesty on the next comment I will address.

[Atharkas]

@MayonR

Mayon, speciation has been observed in fauna, flora and bacterias.

And sorry, but Dawkin never claimed the only explanation was an ultimate designer. I assume you are basing yourself on the "movie" expelled and not on anything he wrote. Sorry, but the formation of life is more likely attributed to abiogenesis. It,s quite an interesting subject to read upon, especially the autocatalyctic self organic replicating molecules part.

[MayonR]

@Atharkas [[ more likely attributed to abiogenesis ]] I really do love your honesty, quite refreshing. Most will never ever admit this is just a theory. And Dawkins said it might have come about by some form of intelligent life. It was from his own mouth. much better than any writing. Of course he will never admit it could be God since that's the whole point. To find excuses for any way but God.

[Atharkas]

@MayonR

Yeah, you obviously never did read any of Dawkin's books. What Dawkin said in Expelled was more about Panspermia and, as he did say : Even those life forms had to come about through evolution and abiogenesis.

And until you actually prove the existence of yahweh, there is no reason to believe it exist.

[MayonR]

@Atharkas And many scientist are known to have conceded that the only explanation can be the divine. Even your false prophet Dawkins has when cornered, conceded that the only explanation can be some ultimate designer. And it is a very small minority who make statements such as this, because as stated by James Tour, synthetic organic chemist, scientist are too busy doing their science. But James Tour is quite candid that he see's God in his advancement of nanotechnology.

[Atharkas]

@MayonR

Actually, sorry, but no scientists are saying it is divine. Heck, this very James Tour do say he do not believe in ID and it shows that, while he is a good chemist, he knows very little in biology, he admit it himself. He did sign the list of 100 scientists who says evolution should be analyzed, it doesn't mean there is no believe in it, do see DonExodus' video where he actually wrote and called every members of that list and ended up with only two who do not believe evolution occurs.

[MayonR]

@Atharkas To say James Tour does not believe in intelligent Design is false since he happens to be an adamant Christian. He simply says he does not claim authority in the debate of Evolution vs. Creation. He does not claim authority to make profound statements like that. My statement was that he has stated that many scientists he is acquainted, with reveal more substance of belief than they release on the outside.

[Atharkas]

@MayonR

Being a christian do not implies believing in Intelligent design. Just like being en IDiot do not mean being a christian since people of different faith may believe that also. Yes, he knew others who were doubtful of "macroevolution" (despite the fact there is no difference between micro and macro since the only variable is the amount of time and cumulative mutations).

[MayonR]

@Atharkas [[ Being a christian do not implies believing in Intelligent design. ]] If by being a Christian you do not mean some label someone gave themselves, but the decision to accept Jesus Christ, then by definition they are Intelligent Design proponents, although some think that God initialized evolution. And that goes against Scripture. Micro evolution is not macro evolution. There is no credible evidence for Macro evolution.

[Atharkas]

@MayonR

Once again, you are making a correlation which do not exist. A lot of christian believe in evolution since it is based on evidence.

Micro evolution and macro evolution is the same. But I'm afraid I need to ask you, what do you think is evolution and how do you think natural selection functions? Do you know what speciation is?

[MayonR]

@Atharkas Not saying you made an outright statement here, but i see hint of an implication. Just because a highly qualified person is educated in a certain field does not disqualify him to speak on another discipline. Fro example, I have witnessed debates with a triple doctorate in dentistry and medicine debate a molecular biologist. The qualifications were the expertise in the evaluation of the research.

[0anamaria0]

...oh...bias..:P