|
Post by jayjay on Jun 24, 2005 12:53:28 GMT -5
Three amazing arguments against evolution
Evolutionists do not have solid support from science when they say everything has “evolved”.
In fact, evolutionists who reject God and miracles have three of the biggest problems in the universe.Problem No. 1There is no scientific law that allows something to evolve from nothing. If there was nothing in the universe to begin with, obviously nothing could happen to cause anything to appear.
Evolutionists often try to duck this problem by saying that evolution is not concerned with the origin of life, only how life progressed after it appeared. But if you can't get something from nothing, it's pointless thinking there was a next step. Juggle the figures any way you like, but without a Creator you are not going to get anything, let alone everything.Problem No. 2No scientific law can account for non-living things’ coming to life. The soil in your garden didn't turn into the trees and flowers. They came from seeds, cuttings, or grafts from other trees and flowers.
Atheistic evolutionists have long believed that at some time in the distant past, life arose from non-living substances. British biologist T.H. Huxley in 1869 and physicist John Tyndall in 1874 were early promoters of the idea that life could be generated from inorganic chemicals. But biology has found no law to support this idea, and much against it. The invariable observation is that only living things give rise to other living things. Life could not begin if God and miracles took no part!Problem No. 3There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind. Insects don't evolve into more complex non-insects for instance, because they don't have the genes to do it.The theory of evolution teaches that simple life-forms evolved into more complex life-forms, such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. There is no natural law known that could allow this to happen. The best that evolutionists can come up with to try to explain how this might have happened is to propose that it happened by mutations and natural selection.
But mutations overwhelmingly destroy genetic information and produce creatures more handicapped than the parents. (See our article on TNR, the Totally Naked Rooster.) And natural selection simply weeds out unfit creatures — it does not turn them into effective, totally different types of creatures. Natural selection may explain why light-colored moths in England decreased and dark moths proliferated (because during the industrial revolution the light moths on dark tree trunks were more easily seen and eaten by birds), but it cannot show that moths could ever turn into effective, totally different, non-moth creatures. Moths simply do not have the genetic information to evolve into something that is not a moth, no matter how much time you give them.
All the evidence is on the side of the Christian who believes the Bible's account of creation — that in the beginning God created the world and all the major types of creatures to reproduce “after their kind”.
That's all folks!!!
|
|
Stouthorn
Junior Scholar
"POWER! UNLIMITED POWER!!"
Posts: 341
|
Post by Stouthorn on Jun 24, 2005 13:13:59 GMT -5
I'm going to duck the first "problem" because a) I don't know a whole lot about the Big Bang and b) the Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution. Moving on... Problem No. 2
No scientific law can account for non-living things’ coming to life. The soil in your garden didn't turn into the trees and flowers. They came from seeds, cuttings, or grafts from other trees and flowers.
Atheistic evolutionists have long believed that at some time in the distant past, life arose from non-living substances. British biologist T.H. Huxley in 1869 and physicist John Tyndall in 1874 were early promoters of the idea that life could be generated from inorganic chemicals. But biology has found no law to support this idea, and much against it. The invariable observation is that only living things give rise to other living things. Life could not begin if God and miracles took no part!Clearly you don't understand how biology views life. Life is a series of chemical reactions. As organisms became more advanced, so did these reactions, but life is reproduction and reaction to stimulus. You're right. Evolution doesn't claim this happens either. Well...not really...I'll get to that... [/color][/quote] Once again, you're not really seeming to grasp evolution. It is a process whereby, over millions of years, creatures adapt in subtle ways to their surroundings. Sometimes this results in the creation of a new animal type -- fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to a myriad other types of creatures -- but more often, in the relatively shorter term, it simply results in new species of the same animal type, to use your example, insects. Yes there is. It's called Natural Selection and Evolutionary Theory. More often than not that's true. Every once in a while, though, it isn't, and that's where Natural Selection takes over. Given enough time and a bit of genetic isolation, it does. It demonstrates it about as well as you demonstrate that it cannot. Given enough time and enough isolation, the black moths will likely split off from the lighter colored ones and become a new species of moth. Another misunderstanding/misrepresentation of how evolution works. True, a moth cannot spontaneously become a non-moth. But, given time, it can become a different kind of moth. Then, over even more time, even more changes will occur that may just result in, given millions of years' time, a new type of insect entirely. Give it more time, more changes, and insects may cease to be insects at all, just as the predecessors of insects ceased to be what they were and became insects. Two things: 1) Evidence against evolution is not evidence for creationism. 2) Where is this evidence of which you speak? That's all folks!!![/color][/quote]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2005 13:23:11 GMT -5
First of all, as was said before, even if you did have evidence against evolution, which you don't, that would not be evidence in favor of creationism. Secondly, Evolution does not deal with the origins of life, it only deals with the evolution of species after life arose. Life could have arisen from natural chemical reactions, from some deity, or because of magic pixie dust, it doesn't matter, that does not affect the validity of evolution in any way. Lastly, please explain what method "God" used to create life, because unless you can do that, your explanation simply consists of "God did it" and nothing else. It's a "God of the gaps" argument, and that is nothing more than an argument from ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by Dom on Jun 24, 2005 13:28:18 GMT -5
Problem 1: " If there was nothing in the universe to begin with, obviously nothing could happen to cause anything to appear."
This is only a problem for creationists, since it is they, not us, who believe the universe started from nothing.
Problem 2: "No scientific law can account for non-living things’ coming to life."
Sure there is: the second law of thermodynamics. It is always possible to create order out of chaos, providing only that more disorder is created elsewhere. The fusion of hydrogen into helium in the Sun creates so much disorder that there are many, many order-creating processes than can be (and are) driven by this mechanism. Creating life out of non-life is one such process. Creating an oak out of an acorn is another. Creating snowflakes from liquid water is a third.
Problem 3: "There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind."
You've never watched caterpillar?
All kidding aside, evolution does not say that one creature turns into a completely different kind. If you don't know how evolution works, you should post elsewhere.
|
|
Stouthorn
Junior Scholar
"POWER! UNLIMITED POWER!!"
Posts: 341
|
Post by Stouthorn on Jun 24, 2005 13:33:13 GMT -5
It's amazing how people think they can argue against something without even understanding it.
Lucky for us, Creationism isn't too difficult.
|
|
|
Post by Christopher on Jun 24, 2005 13:36:29 GMT -5
I know, it's funny.
|
|
Barry
Scholar
You Steal me Mountain Dew, I kill you!
Posts: 634
|
Post by Barry on Jun 24, 2005 13:39:21 GMT -5
That it is
|
|
aric
demi-admin
I drink your milkshake!
Posts: 989
|
Post by aric on Jun 24, 2005 21:47:41 GMT -5
This wouldn't happen to be the same "JJ" from the OMB from a while back, would it? The same one I flamed into oblivion on Dwaggie's board? Three amazing arguments against evolution They're only amazing with regard to how lacking they are in any sort of scientific or logical sense. Evolutionists do not have solid support from science when they say everything has “evolved”. In fact, evolutionists who reject God and miracles have three of the biggest problems in the universe. [/color][/quote] You're right in that science is never certain. That's how it works. All knowledge is contingent on the evidence at hand. New evidence can change theories, or if the evidence cannot be harmonized within current theories, then the theory must be revised. The thing about God and miracles is that God is unfalsifiable whose existence canot be empirically proved. Therefore, he can never be used in a valid scientific theory. Science, by its very nature, cannot factor in the supernatural. Anyone who claims that God can fit into a scientific theory is a moron. Problem No. 1There is no scientific law that allows something to evolve from nothing. If there was nothing in the universe to begin with, obviously nothing could happen to cause anything to appear. How is this an argument against evolution? Evolution talks about the devopment process after life already starts. Evolution isn't concerned with the beginnings. So right off at the bat, you've proven you know nothing about evolution and are currently talking out of your anus. Evolutionists often try to duck this problem by saying that evolution is not concerned with the origin of life, only how life progressed after it appeared. Hey moron, that's not a dodge. That's a fact. It's not science's problem that you're too dumb to understand that. But if you can't get something from nothing, it's pointless thinking there was a next step. Juggle the figures any way you like, but without a Creator you are not going to get anything, let alone everything. [/color][/quote] It's amazing the kind of mental contortionism that anti-evolutionists will go to in order to deny the obvious. Hey asstard, what is the human body made of? Is it made of pixie dust? Take a chemistry or biology class. We're made of carbon and water. Lifeless matter! The idea that life couldn't have arisen from lifelessness is so utterly stupid only brain-damaged morons would believe it. Look up Louis Pasteur and his abiogenesis experiment. It SHOWS you can get organic molecules from inorganic material. The fact that he didn't use the materials that made up the primordial soup is IRRELEVANT! Abiogenesis is possible whether you like it or not. Suck it down, fundie moron. Problem No. 2No scientific law can account for non-living things’ coming to life. The soil in your garden didn't turn into the trees and flowers. They came from seeds, cuttings, or grafts from other trees and flowers. Keep repeating that mantra. Maybe it'll even make sense in that warped brain of yours. Atheistic evolutionists have long believed that at some time in the distant past, life arose from non-living substances. British biologist T.H. Huxley in 1869 and physicist John Tyndall in 1874 were early promoters of the idea that life could be generated from inorganic chemicals. But biology has found no law to support this idea, and much against it. The invariable observation is that only living things give rise to other living things. Life could not begin if God and miracles took no part! [/color][/quote] In order to be able to explain things through science, it has to be naturalistic. Therefore, God is automatically cancelled from any sort of legitimate scientific equation. Problem No. 3There is no known scientific law that would allow one kind of creature to turn naturally into a completely different kind. Insects don't evolve into more complex non-insects for instance, because they don't have the genes to do it. You are one stupid *chocolate*. That law is called transmutation through natural selection, you twit. What the HELL do you mean they don't have the genes? You do realize what mutation is, right? You do know what variation and diversity is, right? Apparently you don't. The theory of evolution teaches that simple life-forms evolved into more complex life-forms, such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. There is no natural law known that could allow this to happen. The best that evolutionists can come up with to try to explain how this might have happened is to propose that it happened by mutations and natural selection. Unfortunately for you, that IS the mechanism through which it happens. What is YOUR explaination? God did it? But mutations overwhelmingly destroy genetic information and produce creatures more handicapped than the parents. (See our article on TNR, the Totally Naked Rooster.) Read your own idiotic words. Overwhelmingly. There are going to be mutations that are beneficial to the organism. The vast majority of mutations are either harmless or deadly. But it only takes the good useful ones to make a difference. Read a freaking book on evolution rather than creationist crap that reinforces your beliefs. And natural selection simply weeds out unfit creatures — it does not turn them into effective, totally different types of creatures. Natural selection may explain why light-colored moths in England decreased and dark moths proliferated (because during the industrial revolution the light moths on dark tree trunks were more easily seen and eaten by birds), but it cannot show that moths could ever turn into effective, totally different, non-moth creatures. Moths simply do not have the genetic information to evolve into something that is not a moth, no matter how much time you give them. Mutations don't adhere to some sort of program. That's why they're called mutations. All the evidence is on the side of the Christian who believes the Bible's account of creation — that in the beginning God created the world and all the major types of creatures to reproduce “after their kind”. You are a rotten liar. There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO SUPPORT CREATIONISM! The bible doesn't cut it. It's a book WRITTEN BY MEN! I don't care if they say God whispered in their ears and shat in their laps. Only faith can make one believe the bible is empirical in any sort of way. And faith is purely subjective and supported only by the Will to Believe. It isn't empirical in any way, and only a dogmatic fool would think the bible qualifies as any sort of evidence that reflects reality in any way. - Aric
|
|
Stouthorn
Junior Scholar
"POWER! UNLIMITED POWER!!"
Posts: 341
|
Post by Stouthorn on Jun 24, 2005 23:25:32 GMT -5
Let me have a heart to heart with the evolutionists here a sec -- flaming the living hell out of a creationist is just giving them fodder against you. Falsehoods and misrepresentation *chocolate* me off, too, but I hate to see your scientific arguments and valid points get undermined by the use of the word "asstard." So many of us are already viewed as belligerent, closed minded liberals -- let's not support that.
|
|
aric
demi-admin
I drink your milkshake!
Posts: 989
|
Post by aric on Jun 24, 2005 23:50:25 GMT -5
Let me have a heart to heart with the evolutionists here a sec -- flaming the living hell out of a creationist is just giving them fodder against you. Falsehoods and misrepresentation *chocolate* me off, too, but I hate to see your scientific arguments and valid points get undermined by the use of the word "asstard." So many of us are already viewed as belligerent, closed minded liberals -- let's not support that. I see what you mean. However, I should point out that pissing and moaning about the spiciness of my posts rather than concentrating on what I'm actually saying is the classic "Style over Substance" fallacy. If creationists were interested in the Truth at all, they would see past the flames and get to he truth. If this jayjay goes about pouting about some flames rather than addressing the substance of my post, then he wasn't interested in debating the issue at all in the first place. In my experience, people like jayjay are a lost cause. That doesn't mean I won't make any arguments, but I'm not going to hold back about my opinions on their views. The flaming and rational arguments go hand in hand. Only someone looking for an excuse to ignore the points would look at the flames first. I went easy on Korby (or whatever his name is) because he actually seems to understand what peer review is and understands some degree about the process of science. Jayjay has illustrated off the bat that he's a moron who is simply regurgitating something he read that reinforces his pre-existing preconceptions about how things came to be. Frankly, I'll spare the patience for guys like Korby, but not for blatant @$$hats like jayjay. I don't mean to sound rude to you, Stouthorn, it's just that I've run across people like jayjay (if not jayjay/JJ himself) before. They're habitual liars and frauds who don't deserve my patience. - Aric
|
|
Stouthorn
Junior Scholar
"POWER! UNLIMITED POWER!!"
Posts: 341
|
Post by Stouthorn on Jun 25, 2005 0:31:18 GMT -5
It's not about anyone being rude. Believe me, I've gotten into some pretty awesome flame wars myself. It's just this particular topic, and others that involve beliefs that, whether you agree with them or not, people hold dear that I start to think about the possibility of the opponent's feelings being hurt. Not to sound like I'm being oversensitive, it's just insulting someone's faith tends to cause problems.
Other than that, as the Human Torch says, "Flame on!"
|
|
aric
demi-admin
I drink your milkshake!
Posts: 989
|
Post by aric on Jun 25, 2005 0:48:15 GMT -5
It's not about anyone being rude. Believe me, I've gotten into some pretty awesome flame wars myself. It's just this particular topic, and others that involve beliefs that, whether you agree with them or not, people hold dear that I start to think about the possibility of the opponent's feelings being hurt. Not to sound like I'm being oversensitive, it's just insulting someone's faith tends to cause problems. Other than that, as the Human Torch says, "Flame on!" Well, I try to keep the flames at a minimum. This is Azzy's board after all. This jayjay character reminds me of JJ. I don't know if you came across him at the OMB. He's the one who claimed to work for some sort of Geological Institute. He brought up a short Web essay about Darwin allegedly recanting evolution, even though the same freakin article has Darwin's daughter refuting that idea. Apparently, he didn't read the whole thing (or ignored the parts that proved him wrong) and claimed it as evidence that Darwin recanted evoltution on his death bed. I'm not sure that this is JJ, but the same name pronouncement is incredibly suspicious. Not to mention the general idiocy I associate with JJ. I just lost my top at the idea that JJ bothered to show his filthy lying rat face. Assuming, of course, that this is JJ and not some poor sap who calls himself jayjay and thus making himself sound a lot like JJ... With regards to personal beliefs, I can understand the need to tread carefully. However, there's also the need to get to the scientific truth. Something that creationism impedes. There comes a point where you have to say creationism is outright wrong and has no logical correspondance with observed reality. It's completely irrelevant if some people don't like it because it undermines their idea of faith. That's not my problem. It just means they need to be more resilient and adaptable. - Aric
|
|
Barry
Scholar
You Steal me Mountain Dew, I kill you!
Posts: 634
|
Post by Barry on Jun 25, 2005 12:47:53 GMT -5
I kinda with Stouthorn. It's about what we believe in. You can't go around shooting down what people believe in. If a person chooses to believe it in a Christian way, Who is to argue. You not going to tell that person that he/she is wrong just because of his religious background. Maybe that's they believe in. That's like telling the sun not to shine. You will lose every time. So who cares if the persons ideas are far fetched, I don't. I like hearing both sides of the arguments. It just give you ideas to help fill in the blanks. Even if you believe it or not.
As for this Jay Jay/jj or what his face, I don't know if it is the same person. I can't tell you.
|
|
Stouthorn
Junior Scholar
"POWER! UNLIMITED POWER!!"
Posts: 341
|
Post by Stouthorn on Jun 25, 2005 13:45:38 GMT -5
True. It'd be different if someone said, "Look...I understand evolution. I've weighed it and I understand it. BUT my faith tells me to believe one way and that's how I believe." That I respect.
I can't stand, however, the falsification and misrepresentation of scientific findings and theories for the purpose of "proving" your point. It weakens your case.
By the way, I'm a theistic evolutionist and, for the record, so was Darwin.
|
|
Barry
Scholar
You Steal me Mountain Dew, I kill you!
Posts: 634
|
Post by Barry on Jun 25, 2005 14:32:48 GMT -5
I can't stand, however, the falsification and misrepresentation of scientific findings and theories for the purpose of "proving" your point. It weakens your case. I understand your position about what you say about the falsification and misrepresentation of scientific findings and theories. That your belief. And I respect that. But since I am a Christian I believe otherwise, because that the way I was brought up, And no one on this Earth is going to tell me otherwise.
|
|