Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Dark Arc

Evolution:

200 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

truethat

Why do we have to do that. I really wish that supporters of evolution would stop invoking the criticism of Creation by way of circumventing valid criticism of evolution.

You mock a Creationist for making up a ridiculous theory but look what you just wrote.

When it comes down to it your whole theory hinges on this statement:

'm sure you will bleat about biogenesis but minerals were leaching from the Earths magma and there could have been an organism in there somewhere.

How is that a scientific statement on which to rest an entire theory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Puzzler
Why do we have to do that. I really wish that supporters of evolution would stop invoking the criticism of Creation by way of circumventing valid criticism of evolution.

You mock a Creationist for making up a ridiculous theory but look what you just wrote.

When it comes down to it your whole theory hinges on this statement:

'm sure you will bleat about biogenesis but minerals were leaching from the Earths magma and there could have been an organism in there somewhere.

How is that a scientific statement on which to rest an entire theory?

The point I was making is that we don't know everything, so I was saying that is was quite possible that organisms were in there. Who knows? How can anyone really know? I am not making any scientific statements, I am not a scientist coming up with evolution theories, I am putting forth what is general knowledge about creation of life in an evolutionary sense and saying we don't have all the answers but to disprove something like that by biogenesis is impossible. If you want to try and pretend to be scientists and think you know where a gene came from, go ahead. These evolution threads always come down to proof and there is none so my comment is really inconsequential. Maybe I should have worded it differently. Also I am not mocking anyone, I am genuinely asking how did God create animals and humans, according the old testament he basically went 'voila' then sat back and said how good it was, no mocking....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fearisgood
Just because we can't recreate this process in a science lab does not mean it could not have happened,
That is exactly why it is not science. Creationists might as well say "just because we can't recreate the six day creation in the lab, does not mean it could not have happened".

I'm sure you will bleat about biogenesis but minerals were leaching from the Earths magma and there could have been an organism in there somewhere.
If , might, maybe, somewhere, sometime... Zero science in that statement. And no, with the present observations, there could not have been an organism in there somewhere, somehow. All current hypothesis have shown not to be feasible.

Some of the criteria for making these organisms may not be around any more. It proves squat that it could not happen.
Are you appealing to an unknown science? Present observation of chemistry and biochemistry show that the formation of even the simplest cell present is not possible through natural means. You are going to have to start to appeal to unobserved organisms somewhere in the past and believe it is true. Just not science is it now...

Creationists blow my mind, how could you possibly choose to believe some God who we can't even define somehow created everything including us? How did he do this? Wave his magic hand and go 'voila' a flea, 'voila' a palm tree, 'voila' a human? Instead of trying to tell Evolutionists and science how wrong it is maybe you can explain how God actually did it all in 6 days no less?
Oh well, might as well say Evolutionists blow my mind, how could you possibly choose to believe some time somewhere, somehow an unknown mechanism gave rise to an unknown organism we can't define, and then everything living we observe today arose from that unknown entity? How did it happen, time a lot of luck? Was there a magic mechanism that is unobservable today, whereby this magical mechanism randomly waved its workings and 'voila' an incredibly complex cell, now go forth and mutate into all the complex organisms we observe today. Instead of trying to say Creationism is not science, show some evidence that abiogenesis did occur or concede that no theory on the origins of life is actually a science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Puzzler
That is exactly why it is not science. Creationists might as well say "just because we can't recreate the six day creation in the lab, does not mean it could not have happened".

If , might, maybe, somewhere, sometime... Zero science in that statement. And no, with the present observations, there could not have been an organism in there somewhere, somehow. All current hypothesis have shown not to be feasible.

Are you appealing to an unknown science? Present observation of chemistry and biochemistry show that the formation of even the simplest cell present is not possible through natural means. You are going to have to start to appeal to unobserved organisms somewhere in the past and believe it is true. Just not science is it now...

Oh well, might as well say Evolutionists blow my mind, how could you possibly choose to believe some time somewhere, somehow an unknown mechanism gave rise to an unknown organism we can't define, and then everything living we observe today arose from that unknown entity? How did it happen, time a lot of luck? Was there a magic mechanism that is unobservable today, whereby this magical mechanism randomly waved its workings and 'voila' an incredibly complex cell, now go forth and mutate into all the complex organisms we observe today. Instead of trying to say Creationism is not science, show some evidence that abiogenesis did occur or concede that no theory on the origins of life is actually a science.

OK no theory on the origins of life is a science. It's a theory, are theories science? No. The starter of this topic states it quite clearly that unless a scientific fact is proven it is a theory. This whole thread is really null and void from the first post. One missing link that cannot be proven in todays world does not rule out evolution theory although your answers are good, great retort to my last paragraph. I never was trying to prove it as a science. My question was actually How did God make everything? How did he literally CREATE everything?

Edited by weareallsuckers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Puzzler
And no, with the present observations, there could not have been an organism in there somewhere, somehow. All current hypothesis have shown not to be feasible.

I'm interested in this as a follower of evolution not because I'm trying to disprove you, nor do I care if its science or not. Charles Darwin wrote: "if we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammoniac and phosphoric salts, light, heat and electricity present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." And from my book on Space: In 1953 2 American chemists Miller and Urey tried to simulate some of the features of this ancient environment and by the end of the experiment they had a deep red solution, rich in large organic molecules including amino acids, the basic building blocks of life. A biologist working for NASA succeeded in synthesizing the basic ingredients of the DNA molecule. Scientists agree that after millions of years a particular configuration of molecules emerged that was able to replicate itself. Still more molecules appeared with growing numbers of the attributes we now associate with living matter. Ultimately the first tiny living thing formed out of countless successive synthesis of other molecules. Its progeny will have included slight mutations, different types of living organism which if successful in the battle for survival spawned others of its own kind. The 4000 million year story of evolution, which culminated in the emergence of mankind, had finally begun.

These are explanations that interpret the beginnings of 'life as we know it'. Besides sounds like science to me, but what do I know.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fearisgood

So why not put the philosophies of origins in the philosophy class and keep the science in he science class.

And from my book on Space: In 1953 2 American chemists Miller and Urey tried to simulate some of the features of this ancient environment and by the end of the experiment they had a deep red solution, rich in large organic molecules including amino acids, the basic building blocks of life.

These are explanations that interpret the beginnings of 'life as we know it'. Besides sounds like science to me, but what do I know.........

The Miller-Urey only proved that some of the amino acids can be formed naturally under reducing conditions. Cysteiene is an amino acid where there is no natural mechanism of formation. This alone poses huge problems.

A biologist working for NASA succeeded in synthesizing the basic ingredients of the DNA molecule.
Chemists are able to synthesize all kinds of molecules. Whether they can be formed as a result of natural processes is an entirely different story.

Scientists agree that after millions of years a particular configuration of molecules emerged that was able to replicate itself.
They can agree all they want, they just dont know how it happened. Unscientific statement by scientists if you ask me.

Still more molecules appeared with growing numbers of the attributes we now associate with living matter. Ultimately the first tiny living thing formed out of countless successive synthesis of other molecules. Its progeny will have included slight mutations, different types of living organism which if successful in the battle for survival spawned others of its own kind. The 4000 million year story of evolution, which culminated in the emergence of mankind, had finally begun.
So goes the fairytale. If you want to believe it, thats your religion.

These are explanations that interpret the beginnings of 'life as we know it'. Besides sounds like science to me, but what do I know.........
People follow science like a religion. It is like "if a scientist says so then it must be so", without questioning it. Fact is that many scientists will say anything to support their philosophy and history will show this. There are two main philosophies concerning the origins of life, creationism and naturalism. Naturalism is very appealing as it does not require accountability to a higher being. However it does provide nice theories and stories. Edited by Fearisgood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark Arc
Evolution is based on facts and evidence, therefore not a religion.

Okay show me where we have a single slow change in animals to something else, show me where we know that a paramecium came from a rock or ooze of protein that suddenly changed into a dna sequence.

Then show me what they believe but do not know to be true, which is religion, or faith whichever you call it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark Arc
Simpler precursors which are now extinct.

And by that you mean a cell without an organelle, a cell without a cell wall, somthing missing something that is vital to survival.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raptor
You still havent provided such information.

Are you kidding me? That point obviously went way over your head.

You said:

So fast that they remain microbes. Can you predict what microbes will "evolve" into anything else than microbes.

Now, microorganisms represent a massive range of different organisms, from all different domains. Yet you sound like you're saying "It didn't evolve, because it's still a microorganism"; which is absurd.

If a dinosaur evolved in to a bird, would you say "It didn't evolve, because it's still an animal"?

Now that we are on the Cambrian explosion, can you provide any reference as to when the earliest life forms supposedly started to take hold.

The Cambrian Explosion and origins of life are unrelated. Cyanobacteria can be dated to ~3.8bya.

I think you already mentioned it.

The Law of Biogenesis was used as an attempt to disprove creationism and states that complex organisms can not be formed from non-life.. Unless you propose molecules to be "life".

First of all, that doesn't inhibit anything because it's only applicable to complex organisms.

Second, I was referring to the Second law of thermodynamics, not biogenetics.

A mutation of the gene causing the protein binding site not to recognize the antibiotic. Not exactly a new information added as a result of mutation.

Okay, define "information".

Okay show me where we have a single slow change in animals to something else, show me where we know that a paramecium came from a rock or ooze of protein that suddenly changed into a dna sequence.

Eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes.

Here's information on the origin of cells. Click.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fearisgood
Are you kidding me? That point obviously went way over your head.
Let's see how far over my head it went.

You said: Speciation has been observed in microbes and other creatures with extremely fast rates of production. Which by the way has also been observed in species with slower rates of production, like the hawthorn fly.

Then i said: So fast that they remain microbes. Can you predict what microbes will "evolve" into anything else than microbes. I might as well have said "Can you predict the hawthorn fly evolving into anything other than a fly".

Then you throw in the following: Just because it remains a microorganism doesn't mean it hasn't evolved. If there was absolute undeniable proof that a dinosaur evolved in to a bird, would you say "That's not evolution, because it's still an animal!"?.

Which i guess i should have said: No if there was absolute undeniable proof that birds evolved from dinosaurs, then i ill say: Great dinosaurs evolved into a bird, end of story. Dinosaur to bird evolution is from one class to another (Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species) I think you wont find examples of evolution from one genus to another or the formation of a new family in the case of bacteria or any other organism for that matter. We observe speciation, not "genusification", "familification" etc... So in essence you are comparing apples and oranges here. Misleading don't you think?

Please explain if you are still over my head, which is entirely possible.

Now, microorganisms represent a massive range of different organisms, from all different domains. Yet you sound like you're saying "It didn't evolve, because it's still a microorganism"; which is absurd.
Can you give an example of where microorganisms evolved into a separate "class" as in your dinosaur to bird evolution example?

First of all, that doesn't inhibit anything because it's only applicable to complex organisms.
And creationists... absurd

Second, I was referring to the Second law of thermodynamics, not biogenetics.
I also fail to see how the SLoT supports abiogenesis.

Okay, define "information".
Looking at the first hypothetical common ancestor, how do you think genes of entirely complex systems were added to provide all the biological systems we observe today with the necessary information to function. Time and a lot of imagination i would imagine.

Eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes.
So goes the philosophy.

Unfortunatelatey i dont have access to that journal, but browsing around i found some interesting article titles.

1) Genomic reduction and evolution of novel genetic membranes and protein-targeting machinery in eukaryote-eukaryote chimaeras (meta-algae)

2) Cell evolution and Earth history: stasis and revolution

3) Genomes at the interface between bacteria and organelles

Guess which journal these beauties are published: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Guess they are still philosophying about origins. Teach philosophy in philosophy class.

Edited by Fearisgood

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark Arc
Guess which journal these beauties are published: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Guess they are still philosophying about origins. Teach philosophy in philosophy class.

Exactly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raptor
Let's see how far over my head it went.

You said: Speciation has been observed in microbes and other creatures with extremely fast rates of production. Which by the way has also been observed in species with slower rates of production, like the hawthorn fly.

Then i said: So fast that they remain microbes. Can you predict what microbes will "evolve" into anything else than microbes. I might as well have said "Can you predict the hawthorn fly evolving into anything other than a fly".

Then you throw in the following: Just because it remains a microorganism doesn't mean it hasn't evolved. If there was absolute undeniable proof that a dinosaur evolved in to a bird, would you say "That's not evolution, because it's still an animal!"?.

Which i guess i should have said: No if there was absolute undeniable proof that birds evolved from dinosaurs, then i ill say: Great dinosaurs evolved into a bird, end of story. Dinosaur to bird evolution is from one class to another (Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species) I think you wont find examples of evolution from one genus to another or the formation of a new family in the case of bacteria or any other organism for that matter. We observe speciation, not "genusification", "familification" etc... So in essence you are comparing apples and oranges here. Misleading don't you think?

Please explain if you are still over my head, which is entirely possible.

Then it appears to be a misunderstanding. A microorganism is just that, an organism which is microscopic in size; it encompasses a vast number of different organisms from all of the kingdoms. To say "when will they evolve to be anything other than microorganisms" seems illogical to me because what you're describing is a characteristic. It's like asking when an animal is going to evolve seven ears. It's not the same as asking when a hawthorn fly is going to evolve to the point it's no longer a fly, because that's a taxonomic classification.

I didn't mean for this to be drawn out for so long, it was just an observation. A pretty irrelevant one at that.

I also fail to see how the SLoT supports abiogenesis.

Is there any real requirement for it to?

Unfortunatelatey i dont have access to that journal, but browsing around i found some interesting article titles.

It's free to access, just a problem with the links I think. Here it is again, Link. If it still doesn't work the Paper title is "Cell evolution and earth history: stasis and revolution". It's got some interesting information, incl. evidence of eukaroytes evolving from prokaryotes.

Guess which journal these beauties are published: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Guess they are still philosophying about origins. Teach philosophy in philosophy class.

Abiogenesis is still very much a work in progress, no one is claiming to have all of the answers.

Edited by Raptor X7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ahh An Atheist

Wow you are an ignoramus, the big bang did not happen out of nothing. This thread should be closed as it is ridiculous and there are 3 other ones on the same subject at this very moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark Arc
Wow you are an ignoramus, the big bang did not happen out of nothing. This thread should be closed as it is ridiculous and there are 3 other ones on the same subject at this very moment.

If it didn't happen from nothing what did cause it? Ridculous? No THIS IS UNEXPLAINED!!!! (sorry 300 joke)And well screw those other boards mines better!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
leadbelly

-edit-

I had a question, but don't want to take this in another direction. It's not my field of interest.

Edited by leadbelly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark Arc
-edit-

I had a question, but don't want to take this in another direction. It's not my field of interest.

Ask anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
magnetar

I have personal beliefs, based on my own experiences in life, that tell me there is more than meets the eye to this Universe. I must conclude, by extrapolation, that certain "rare" variations in the human experience point to what I call the other world. For all I know, the whole thing is wrapped up under the guise of a divine intelligence or Being.

Nonetheless, I also know when I need a doctor, it's not a witch doctor, but someone with scientific training. So, I put a lot of stock in the pursuit of science. It demands specialists who do not always cross-talk with other disciplines. It is forever a work in progress.

I will pursue one or two other lines of thought, later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
And they call all this "SCIENCE?"

Here is my source:

http://www.biblebc.com/CreationEvolution/c...lesson%2019.htm

I don't know where your source got their information, but it matches only poorly with what I have read regarding evolution. This sounds more like pseudoscience.

Just one thought: you're as likely to get good information about evolution from a creationist as you are to get good information about creationism from an evolutionary biologist. These two areas do not overlap. One deals with things that are observable, while the other deals with things that aren't. One is science; the other is religion. Each produces its best results when it is smart enough to remember what it is an expert in and stays out of areas it knows nothing about.

--DJS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029
Guess which journal these beauties are published: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Guess they are still philosophying about origins. Teach philosophy in philosophy class.

I am about to complete a doctorate in forest biometry, a field whose findings tend strongly to support evolution. Guess what the full name of my degree will be:

Doctor of PHILOSOPHY in Forest Biometry.

Maybe you should research what words like "Philosophy" and "Theory" actually mean when used by scientists.

--DJS

P.S.: I have never taken even ONE course in philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Toxic Flood

Why would you post this in the science section? Put this in spirituality vs skepticism next time, it's not science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Three Ventriloquists

Please correct me if im wrong but i have never seen a creationist actualy give any evidence for creationism. All ive ever seen is them trying to make others look wrong but not make themselves right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SherlockH

I haven’t the time nor expertise to address all the points put forth by everyone, but I would like to address a few of the earliest posts by Capeo and a few others. Unlike Dark Arc, however, I will not avoid using biblical arguments, if they seem appropriate. When Darwinists demand that you give arguments without using the Bible, they are trying to stack the deck. They’re saying “Okay you can fight the duel. You just can’t have any bullets in your gun.”

Airika says:

This is the most uneducated statement I have heard all day. Many of the stories in the bible haven't even been founded as ever happening. In the book of Exodus, When Moses supposedly parted the sea, it was misinterprated as the Red Sea, when in fact in the original Hebrew text it clearly states it's the Sea of Reeds. That's just one example. I understand what you're saying, but just because a book, written by many different men says something happened, doesn't make it so either.

The statement regarding the Red Sea is a good example of apparent Bible contradictions that are not contradictions at all, when one understands what is written. Good Bible commentaries will tell you that the Red Sea and the Sea of Reeds are just different names for the same body of water. The Hebrews called it the Sea of Reeds or bulrushes; to the Greeks it was known as the Red Sea, possibly because of the red mountains on the western shore or the red coral found in it.

As for the comment about “Many of the stories in the bible haven't even been founded as ever happening,” to my knowledge there has never been a discovery proving that anything in the Bible is not true. In fact, time and again, archeological discoveries are made that affirm something found in the Bible. The Bible has amazing cohesiveness in history, doctrine, etc. for a book written over many centuries by a diverse group of authors.

Truethat says:

“A beautiful Swiss watch could not come from an exploding steel mill” and then says this is subjective. It is not. It is an objective statement of fact. It is something that could be demonstrated by repeated experimentation -- although I’m sure no one wants to go around exploding steel mills just to prove a point. (The only way one would find a Swiss watch in an exploded steel mill is if it came off of someone’s wrist.)

His analogy to the food coloring in the way is flawed. When you put a drop of dye in water, the dye spreads out uniformly through the water until a state of equilibrium is reached -- a simple principle of physics. It takes no creative power (other than that which God has already put forth when he created physics) to get the dye to spread through the water. It may be random, perhaps, but it is not chaotic, because each water and dye molecule is obeying those laws of physics as they bump into one another.

It clearly takes creative power -- intelligent input -- to first design a watch, then make the watch pieces (to say nothing of making the machines that make the pieces), then assemble them in the correct sequence and relationship to one another in order to make a functional mechanism. An explosion has no creative power.

Humans -- and all life -- are vastly more complex than either a simple drop of dye in water or a Swiss watch. Read about the amazing chemical chain reaction that must occur every nanosecond to make sight possible or the blood clotting cascade that keeps us from bleeding to death when injured, how DNA “unzips” itself from one end and then each half rezips itself from the other end with every gene sequence exactly replicated in both halves. No random forces could possibly be responsible for any of these or thousands of other biological processes.

Anyway, on to Capeo’s comments.

Capeo says

“Speciation has been observed in microbes and other creatures with extremely fast rates of production. Genetics emphatically supports common descent. The entire fossil record supports evolution.”

Speciation is not the same as evolution. It is a reshuffling, recombining or deleting of existing genetic information. The end product is merely a different variety of the beginning state -- dogs remain dogs, cats remain cats, etc. That is as far as “common descent” goes. As the Bible puts it, creatures reproduce “after their kind.”

True evolution requires the creation of new genetic information that codes for new functions or morphology, something that has never been observed anywhere at any time. Genetics can just as easily -- and emphatically -- support creation.

“I have no idea what you're talking about the bible being proven in court to be true, that's a ridiculous statement, completely unsupported by the amount of historically and scientifically inaccurate passages of the bible”

Name one historically or scientifically in accurate passage in the Bible. For any you can name, I am sure that there are many well-educated Bible scholars and/or scientists that can give a rational, accurate, historic and/or scientific explanation. The truth is that time and again, historic records and archeology have confirmed what is written in the Bible. And the only “scientific” contradictions found in the Bible are those instances that are clearly demonstrations of God’s sovereignty over the universe he created, i.e. miracles.

“Lastly, evolution has nothing to do with religion.”

While evolution may not address religion directly, it certainly has strong religious implications. Evolution is supposed to be a purely naturalistic process unguided by any outside intelligence.

“The earth is not a closed system! We have this huge furnace called the sun constantly adding energy to the system. If energy couldn't overcome entropy nothing could happen in any sense. No work, no growth.”

Here is a quote from Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross:

“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”

[Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]

Just because you have an energy supply does not mean said energy is going to be useful. You must have some sort of mechanism that will translate that energy into a useful form. Sunlight shining on the earth would only transfer heat and light energy to the ground. Actually, this constant influx of energy tends to increase entropy, accelerating those natural processes that break down chemical bonds, etc. Ever seen (and smelled) a dead animal left out in the open? It tends to “break down” rather more quickly in the summer than in the winter, aside from the ants and other scavengers.

Evolution deals in biological systems, which must capture this light and heat and put it to use -- the work and the growth you refer to. Plants, for example, use photosynthesis to do this. It is only by such mechanisms, which require an influx of energy, that organisms are able to maintain themselves, to live and grow.

But how did these marvelous mechanisms to create order from random energy come into being? The transfer of the energy itself is a chemical process, but how could plants and animals develop the biological mechanisms to perform this? By random chance? Not likely at all.

“There are millions of compounds that have less energy in them than the elements of which they are composed.”

So? If I remember my high school chemistry and physics, this is because in the formation of chemical compounds, some of this energy is lost in heat and/or light. The total energy involved is the same; some of it is just lost.

“It means that the second law energetically FAVORS -- yes, predicts firmly -- the spontaneous formation of complex, geometrically ordered molecules from utterly simple atoms of elements. Popular statements such as "the second law says that all systems fundamentally tend toward disorder and randomness" are wrong when they refer to chemistry, and chemistry precisely deals with the structure and behavior of all types of matter.”

Mere “order” does not equate with increase in information, organization or complexity or the reduction of entropy. For example, the formation of “geometrically ordered molecules from utterly simple atoms of elements,” such as snowflakes or crystals, is a movement towards equilibrium -- a lower energy level -- and a more stable arrangement of the molecules or atoms into simple, uniform, repeating structures with minimal complexity and no function. These are not examples of matter forming itself into more organized or more complex structures or systems, even though they may certainly show “order” in the form of simple patterns.

I am not a chemist, but I do know that chemical reactions are far different than biological processes. But even so, chemistry is important to those processes. Consider just the formation of proteins from amino acids. Random chemical processes will not create the necessary order for the protein to function. Even the amino acids themselves will not form spontaneously. People like to tout the experiments by Oparin and Urey and Miller that managed to form amino acids. They ignore the fact that these experiments assumed the existence of extremely favorable conditions, that every step of the process was carefully controlled and the amino acids were filtered out before they could be destroyed hardly a naturalistic process. All such experiments proved is that it is possible to produce amino acids under carefully controlled laboratory conditions. And the formation of amino acids is still a long way from making a protein, which is still a long way from making a living cell.

Let's consider the formation of proteins from amino acids by random chance. This has been demonstrated to be impossible, even given billions of years. Let’s consider a simple protein of 100 amino acids and assume an abundant supply of the 20 most common amino acids found in protein. What are the chances of getting the correct sequence of amino acids by random chance?

“Since there are 20 different amino acids involved, it is (1/20)100, which is 10-130 power. To try to get this in perspective, there are about 1080 fundamental particles (electrons, etc) in the universe. If every one of those particles were an experiment at getting the right sequence with all the correct amino acids present, every microsecond of 15 billion years, that amounts to 4.7 x 10103 experiments. We are still 1027 power experiments short of getting an even chance of it happening. In other words, this is IMPOSSIBLE!

It’s actually far worse than this. More than the 20 amino acids found in living things have been produced in “origin of life” experiments. It is impossible without enzymes to produce them with the correct chirality -- there are left- and right-handed forms of amino acids and typically only left-handed forms are used in living things (though there are some rare exceptions). The non-enzymic processes available in the pre-biotic soup (only living cells produce enzymes) could only produce equal quantities of both types. In other words there could have been more than 50 amino acids to choose the 20 from. This makes the probability (1/50)100 or 10-170!” (Information from Answers in Genesis)

“You do know that there is no such thing as a transitional form per se? All creatures are what they are at any given time. We simply use species as label to help classifiy flora and fauna. Every creature is a transitional form. To actually address what you're dancing around though, you must realize that fossils have been found that represent say: sea to land, dinosaurs to birds, whales from land creatures back to water, early hominid species. This argument has so thoroughly been debunked I can't believe it's still brought up.”

The transitional fossils argument has been “debunked” only among those who refuse to recognize arguments to the contrary. There are no supposed “transitional” fossils that are not in dispute. Many evolutionists want to equate similar homology with common descent, when a creationist explanation fits the facts as well as or better. Evolutionists will often claim a fossil -- which usually is only a few bone fragments -- “proves” a transitional form. They offer no unequivocal proof that this is so, they merely “say” it is so. A big difference.

How many former “transitional” forms have now been dismissed by evolutionists themselves as incorrect? Remember the coelacanth? It was held up as a classic example of a transitional form until one was actually caught and more were later observed in their natural environment. Far from being a transitional form it turned out to be just another fish.

“Whales from land creatures back to water?” Again, this is a lot of dogmatic assertions with no real proof. There are many problems with so-called “walking whales” et al for which evolutionists have no answers except “It has to be so.”

There is not a single line of fossils that shows a clear transition from one type of creature into something entirely different -- not sea to land, dinosaur to bird, or apes to man.

“Strata can be accurately dated using radiometric techniques. Palentologists, geologists and archeologists start with that. If a fossil has always only been found in a certain strata and that fossil is found in a strata on site then it can be used to give a rough date. Follow up analysis is always done if the item is date crucial though.”

Radiometric dating is wildly inaccurate and is based on making a number of untestable assumptions about the past. Rocks taken from the Mount St. Helens eruption in 1980 were dated anywhere from 500,000 to 2.8 million years old, I believe. Paleontologists, geologists and archeologists routinely reject radiometric dates if they do not match their preconceived ideas of how old a fossil or artifact is. Such dates are only accepted (and published) if they approximate what the paleontologist etc. already wanted to believe is true.

“The flood never happened. There is no geologic evidence for it”

There is plenty of evidence for the Genesis flood. The problem is that many scientists START with the assumption that the Flood did not happen, ruling out that explanation BEFORE even examining the evidence.

“Strata are not as ununiform as you would like to believe.”

Uniformitarianism is a prime example of assumptions made by evolutionists. Geological strata do not come with labels saying “15 million years old,” 25 million years old,” 150 million years old” etc. Many assumptions are made, (a constant rate of deposits, the amount of radiometric dating materials present at the start, the uniform decay rates of those materials, etc.), assumptions that can not be tested since they happened in the past. These things are merely assumed to be true with no empirical data to back them up.

As Dark Arc pointed out, geological strata are dated by the fossils found in them, which in turn are dated by the strata in which they are found. Circular reasoning. As noted above, radiometric dates assigned to these strata and fossils are accepted only if they fit in with the preconceived idea of their ages.

As a side note, there is not “evolutionist” evidence and “creationist” evidence. There is just evidence -- that which we can see and measure. The difference is in the assumptions made a priori. When one has a naturalistic set of assumptions, the possibility of a supernatural explanation can never even be considered. “We know miracles don’t happen, so there must be another explanation.” One can only “know” miracles don’t happen if one is omniscient, an attribute of God.

If, on the other hand, one believes in God, who is beyond nature, both naturalistic and supernatural explanations can be considered. A tree falls. Did God knock it over or did it just rot and fall? Both considerations are possible to a creationist, who is free to examine the evidence and make whatever determination seems most plausible. A creationist need not appeal to the supernatural for an explanation, but he may if no other explanation seems to fit.

“Java man is Homo Erectus and more complete specimens have been found since then. Nice trying to use a more than century old analysis, while ignoring modern analysis, to make your point.

2. No, you are wrong. The first near complete skeleton gave rise to the stooped posture. That was the sickly one. Discoveries since then, of which there are many, show them to be a different homo species that was quite robust and strong. Get you facts straight. No scientist is saying what you're purporting they are.

3. Piltdown was a hoax. It was found out. So? There was an attempted hoax not that long ago in China. that was found out too. You can't get away with it.

4. So peking man is missing. So what? There's far more fossils than that.

5. Again, this was the 1920's. And it was discovered to be false even then. Are you afraid to bring up any evidence after the 60's or what?

6. Lucy is an Australopithecus, an early human predecessor, not an extinct orangutan. Where do you get this stuff?”

The assumption is that homo erectus was an ancestor of modern man. An assumption is not proof. There is no fossil evidence linking Java man to modern humans beyond the mere speculation that he was such an ancestor. Indeed, there are anthropologists who now argue that Java Man was a true human, just as there are anthropologists also now consider Neanderthals to be a race of humans, not just a different homo species.

I think the reason that Piltdown, Peking and Nebraska man were mentioned was to illustrate how easily hoaxes can be accepted as fact among scientists when they want to believe that something is true.

Nothing found after the 1960s proves man is descended from a lower species, either. Even “Lucy” is now considered a “cousin” (by Darwinists, of course) rather than a direct ancestor of modern man. Read the following:

Tel Aviv University anthropologists say they have disproven the theory that "Lucy" - the world-famous 3.2-million-year-old Australopithecus afarensis skeleton found in Ethiopia 33 years ago - is the last ancestor common to humans and another branch of the great apes family known as the "Robust hominids."

The specific structure found in Lucy also appears in a species called Australopithecus robustus. Prof. Yoel Rak and colleagues at the Sackler School of Medicine's department of anatomy and anthropology wrote, "The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Australopithecus afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of [Lucy] as a common ancestor. (“Israeli researchers: 'Lucy’ is not direct ancestor of humans” The Jerusalem Post, April 16, 2007)

“Where do you get this stuff?” Newspapers, books and other reliable sources.

"There has never been an actual scientific argument against evolution that has stood up to scrutiny and most arguments, like your own, aren't even scientfic to begin with.”

Another falsehood spread by the Darwinist camp.

The arguments given by creation scientists are most definitely scientific in nature and hold up very well to objective scrutiny. Creation scientists have academic degrees and credentials every bit as valid as those earned by evolution scientists, granted by the same universities and professional organizations. The problem is that many in the scientific community won’t even listen to creationist arguments because they do not arrive at the conclusion they want to hear. Darwinists beg the question by assuming evolution is true, rather than proving it to be so. “Science says life evolved from nothing. Creationists can’t be real scientists because they don’t believe that life evolved. Therefore, their arguments are not real science.”

Darwinists also try to dismiss creationist claims as “just religion,” ignoring the validity of their science-based arguments. Many creationists do have religious arguments against evolution in addition to their science-based arguments. However, there are people of all faiths and even no faith at all that reject evolution theory on purely scientific grounds.

Science should be about examining the evidence and engaging in give and take discussion, which it is in most branches of science. The exception is evolution theory. Dissent from the party line is dismissed out of hand, reviled and even censored. Peer-reviewed publications will not accept articles from creationists, not even letters to the editor. Rarely are the valid scientific arguments addressed, because evolutionists have no valid scientific arguments against them.

It appears that Fearisgood’s predictions about responses to Dark Arc’s original post have proven to be true.

One last comment about the most recent post from the Three Ventriloquists, who said:

"Please correct me if im wrong but i have never seen a creationist actualy give any evidence for creationism. All ive ever seen is them trying to make others look wrong but not make themselves right."

You seem to be missing the point. As noted above, there is not “evolutionist” evidence or “creationist” evidence. There is just evidence. The difference lies in how it is interpreted. The creationist interpretation of the evidence is that life is too complex to have come into existence without some outside creative intelligence at work. Since neither side can "prove" their side of the argument, one way creationists can demonstrate the validity of creation theory is to point out the scientific flaws in evolution theory. Because there are only two viable theories for the origin of life -- evolution and creation -- to demonstrate that one is impossible would seem to indicate that the other is at least probable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lt_Ripley
You are a brave man. Prepare to be flamed and receive asinine remarks from mostly (not exclusively) atheistic evolutionists trying to derail the arguments presented. I predict the following will happen with this thread:

1) Subject will be changed or derailed.

2) Name-calling and/or flame-fest.

3) Asinine and snide remarks.

4) Ask you to provide a better theory.

5) Categorize you as an uneducated person who doesn't know a thing what you are talking about.

6) Never will any of the points presented discussed in detail.

7) Your evidence will be claimed as lies and already debunked without discussion.

But good luck.

boy ! aren't you the kettle calling the pot black.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lt_Ripley
The truth is that time and again, historic records and archeology have confirmed what is written in the Bible. And the only “scientific†contradictions found in the Bible are those instances that are clearly demonstrations of God’s sovereignty over the universe he created, i.e. miracles.

i didn't go through all of your filibuster. it would be too consuming. let's just say this is one of the many points you are wrong.

the bible has also been confirmed to have alot of myth and inaccuracies in it as well. there is no proof jesus existed as well. no fact. but that aside for another argument -

Noah's flood. there may have been a flood but it wasn't worldwide. honestly , think logically. 2 of every species? worldwide ? mmmmmm nope. so much for the bibles history. but it is easy to see how man at the time thought it was the whole world because his world was still flat.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_noah.htm

or the error in the bible about Jericho .

Kathleen Kenyon's excavations at Jericho between 1952 and 1958 proved that the city actually did not exist during the Exodus period when it was supposedly conquered by Joshua. By the time of the conquest, Jericho had been a ruin for a hundred years or more. As stated in the November-December 1978 issue of Biblical Archeology Review:

Her Jericho excavations have raised problems for Biblical historians: she found no city there during the Late Bronze Age, the period when Joshua is thought to have lived. Had the Late Bronze Age city eroded away, as some scholars think, or was Joshua's conquest of Jericho, for some reason or other and in some detail or other, inaccurately related in the Bible? Dame Kathleen rejected the view that the Late Bronze Age city had eroded away .2

A similar problem occurred with regard to Joshua's supposed conquest of the city of Ai. Actually the Hebrew word Ai means "Ruin," and that is exactly what it was at the time of the Hebrew invasion. Excavations of the site have shown that it was totally destroyed in 2400 B.C. (evidently by Egyptians), and it remained a ruin until about 1220 B.C. At that latter date, according to Joseph Callaway of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, a new settlement was made on three acres of the 27-acre hilltop. There were no defenders of the site to resist this peaceful occupation.

Still another Patriarchal anachronism that has come to light is the questionable association of the Philistine people (of the Iron Age) with Abraham, Isaac, and Moses (of the Bronze Age). The Bible indicates that the land of Canaan was inhabited by Philistines from the days of the Patriarchs in Gen. 21:34, 26:15, and Ex. 15:14. But historical accounts taken from the archives of neighboring kings indicate that these people were not on the scene until the 12th century B.C. Having been defeated by the Egyptians in a great sea battle about 1191 B.C., the "sea peoples," as they were called, were thrown back upon Canaan-which they readily occupied by means of their new iron weapons. It was their initial presence, in fact, that precipitated the formation of the Hebrew monarchy under the first warrior-king, Saul.

you can also read about the 'flood' as well. a more comprehensive in depth archaeological study explanation.

great site for archaeological facts.

http://www.asa3.org/asa/PSCF/1984/JASA9-84Atkins.html

Edited by Lt_Ripley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cradle of Fish
People follow science like a religion. It is like "if a scientist says so then it must be so", without questioning it. Fact is that many scientists will say anything to support their philosophy and history will show this. There are two main philosophies concerning the origins of life, creationism and naturalism. Naturalism is very appealing as it does not require accountability to a higher being. However it does provide nice theories and stories.

If a scientist says something that is widely agreed upon by his peers it is probably so, but if you have doubts you can go out and check the evidence yourself. Infact you're encouraged to question what the scientists say, but dont write it off because your pastor tells you to. Science is not a religion, it doesn't give comfort it gives truth, it doesn't require faith it requires evidence. You can deny the evidence all you want, but it just keeps pointing at the theory of evolution, and there'll be more and more evidence. And lets look at the evidence for creationism: Holy texts and gaps which haven't been explored completely. I dont know why you would insist in a literal interpretation of the bible when the old testament says the earth is younger than agriculture, the wheel, man made fire and the domesticated dog. There are countless moderates who believe evolution and the bible, they just have to accept that some of the bible is completely allegorical.

And dont spout that accountability tripe. I would prefer accountability to my fellow human beings than to some ancient deity worshipped by a tribe of wandering Jews that somehow grew into the biggest cult in the world. I suggest that you stop grinding an axe and try to explore evolution properly without resorting to creationist sources with a similar axe to grind.

EDIT: I'd just like to add an interesting quote that I heard from Bishop Richard Harries: "God does not make the world, he does something more wonderful; he makes the world make itself." Wouldn't that suggest a much greater intellect from God than the dark ages version you seem to follow?

Edited by Cradle of Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.