TTAM has a nice list with explanations of the Ten Major Flaws of Evolution. I’ve listed them here without the explanations, for reference and enjoyment. I know that these have all been "refuted" by evolutionists, but creationists, including myself, find their refutations unconvincing – and not because of our "faith", but because the evolutionary comebacks are weak. Fact is, evolution is bad science, and bad philosophy, nothing more.
- The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created.
- The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence.
- No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered.
- Evolution flies directly in the face of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics.
- There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms ("missing links") required for evolution to be true.
- Pictures of ape-to-human "missing links" are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists’ already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived.
- The dating methods that evolutionists rely upon to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are very inconsistent and based on unproven (and questionable) assumptions.
- Uses continue to be found for supposedly "leftover" [vestigial] body structures.
- Evolution is said to have begun by spontaneous generation—a concept ridiculed by biology.
- The scientific method can only test existing data—it cannot draw conclusions about origins.
Seeker, you're such a liar. You're never going to accept evolution, because it is never going to jive with your Christianity. Don't act like the scientists are giving you insufficient explnations. No explanation is ever going to be good enough. And you know it. Wouldn't it make more sense for you to simply denounce science altogether, since you find its facts and theories and evidence so awful? And wouldn't it make more sense for you to tell us what you believe? That a magical God created everything we know, and even though there is absolutely NO evidence of this God, nothing to prove its existence, we should believe you because some stupid book written by some of the most ignorant people imaginable tells you so? Would that really kill you?
As usual Mynym, your arguments are so overwhelming that I must submit. And by submit, I mean roll my eyes. And by roll my eyes, I mean once again be stunned at your own certainty about things, based on a book that was written by, you guessed it, some of the most ignorant people on our green Earth. People living 2000 years ago certainly weren't smart, and yet you'd take their account of our creation as if its something worth our trust.
Mynym, you are right in one aspect. Moderns whose scientific acument and accomplishments are mere specs in comparison to the things discovered in former times fancy themselves more intelligent and superior to these great men of science and faith, thinking that somehow these men in the past were merely still saddled with cultural religious baggage, rather then deeply held beliefs confirmed by their enormous faculties of reason.
Sam is fond of slinging insults, not willing to admit that even one out of these ten accusations might have some truth to it. But by stooping to such antics, Sam has removed himself from reasoned discussion. He fancies that we are also beyond reason, not listening anymore, but rather, merely repeating the same old "creationist canards," so why should he bother? We've been over these subjects before.
But I repeat such nice summaries, not for Sam, who has dismissed us as irrelevant, but rather, for those who are seeking to defend creationism against the poor science of evolutionary biology, and for those still in the valley of decision who might yet see that evolution is a sham, the post-modernist's new clothes, as it were.
I do, however, find these 10 arguments poorly answered by evolutionists, though answer they have. They are comitted to only one reading of the data, the one that supports their fantastic supposition, no matter how much data is lacking or contradicting them. They are to be pitied, while those of us who still hold to reason investigate the marvelous creation without the blindfolds of the faith of evolutionary origins.
Seeker,
I will repeat that you will never be willing to accept evolution. Stop pretending like its the evidence that stopping you. It's the fact that you've chosen a 2000 year old book written by morons over worldwide scientific progress. So…congratulations. But honestly, you need to stop lying about these things.
Anyone who claims that the laws of thermodynamics prevent evolution, without realizing that such a claim means the laws also prevent the growth of an embryo, or the maturing of an infant, doesn't understand physics or chemistry well enough to be commenting on thermodynamics.
That's a sure-fire indicator of crank science. The list of ten is a list of crankery.
Hey, this is like the Muslims with the cartoons, only its Christians. But still equally stupid.
As usual Mynym, your arguments are so overwhelming that I must submit. And by submit, I mean roll my eyes. And by roll my eyes, I mean once again be stunned at your own certainty about things based on a book that was written by, you guessed it, some of the most ignorant people on our green Earth.
How is it that ignorant people built the Great Pyramid or the Trilithon? The “stone blocks that make up the Trilithon weigh more than 1,100 tons each, and they do not lie on the ground itself, but are placed higher, upon other immense, though smaller, stone blocks, cut to have a slanting face, that weigh “only” 500 tons each. (By comparison, the stone blocks in the Giza pyramid average only 2.5 tons.)”
There are numerous lines of evidence that ancient people had more knowledge than those who came after them.
People living 2000 years ago certainly weren’t smart…
Why not?
…and yet you’d take their account of our creation as if its something worth our trust.
We’ve already taken much ancient knowledge, it is likely that astrology would not have been reformed to astronomy without enough original knowledge to work with. For instance if those who lived at later times simply discarded all egyptian knowledge of the stars just because they were religious bigots who hated the egyptian religion they would have been set back quite a long time.
Every week, new scientific discoveries are published in peer-reviewed journals. These discoveries reinforce or refine the theory of evolution and negate the idea of created life. This has been the case for five generations.
If you make the term evolution a pollution of language that can mean a change in the size of finch beaks or every change that takes place in the Cosmos, then of course it can say whatever you want it to say. As for peer reviewed journal thumping, eugenicists and German biologists published new scientific “discoveries” in their journals that all supported their ignorant and stupid ideas with little to no dissent. If you begin with the Darwinian standard of including your own imagination as evidence then of course you will be overwhelmed by it.
If the actual evidence was truly overwhelming in empirical ways then a critic wouldn’t be able to state:
–Michael Denton cf. (Doubts About Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design
by Thomas Woodward :47)
Remember that the amount of media attention an idea gets is not a measure of its validity. Keep your eye on the real debate, not the ratings-driven coverage in the popular media.
And once people keep their eye on peer-reviewed journals then how will you literature bluff to make false claims about empirical evidence? Note that imagining a little history is not empirical evidence, although you say: In this debate, creationists will point to some hard-to-explain biological fact as the ‘final proof’ that a deity is necessary because no imaginable mechanism could cause such a complex feature. But, inevitably, the feature is explained by evolution.
Since when does proof have to do with imagining things? That’s just Darwin’s standard: “If it could be demonstrated that I cannot imagine a historical sequence for something, then my theory would absolutely break down! Say, I can always imagine something about the past, which is evidence.”
So creationists step back, point to some smaller, less-obvious, more-complex feature as being the real final proof. Then the process repeats itself. This has been the case for five generations.
Darwinists set a degenerate epistemic standard in biology for five generations that seems to make many biologists mentally retarded, it’s probably because Darwinian reasoning is based more on the urge to merge than actual evidence.
Creationism avoids the issue of mechanism. If evolution holds, we know roughly how it works. The mechanisms by which life arises are inherent in the theory.
They should be inherent in the facts of life but in fact they are not, which is probably why the Darwinian mind claims that its own theorizing is all the fact it needs. Its theory is always a fact, after all.
Although in theory it all works in the Darwinian mind, in fact it doesn’t.
If creationism holds, we still don’t know how anything happened, except that we can say, “Some god did it”.
Or you could say that apparently one God designed things in such a way so that mental incompetents would have a hard time denying its role as creator.
E.g.,
Lamarckism as the most logical mode of creation by the “emergence” of characters, refuted by the distinct role of genetics in reproduction and yet adaptation can still take place.
Spontaneous generation as a form of “natural emergence,” refuted by basic experimentation. Pasteur’s flasks sit to this day with life yet to emerge, naturally enough.
Molecular evidence as evidence for common emergence, contradicted by morphological evidence, yet morphological evidence tends to show odd characters such as a “duck-billed” platypus as well as numerous instances of so-called “convergence” like the eyes of the sandlance. Perhaps evidence for some form of commonality is being discarded, yet any commonality of characters that can be imagined to comport with the hypothetical goo typical to theories of emergence is immediately counted as “overwhelming evidence.”
Concede for a moment that a creator exists. Point to any complex biological feature, and ask how it came into existence. If it did not arise through natural pressures on slowly-changing populations (which are obviously insufficient to cause change), then how did it come about?
How does an embryo unfold and come into being as an organism? Ironic, you can see it coming into existence and emerging yet Life is also designed to utterly resists explanation by emergence.
Did mammary glands just pop onto the torsos of the first female mammals? For that matter, did the mammal itself just pop into existence? Did some old being sit down with clay, make a man, and breathe life into it?
First it seems that the Old Being would have to set the physical laws just so, so that the dust and the laws governing it would be just so and so on, and on, and on. It matters little, to paraphrase Einstein your form of reasoning which tries to find reason “emerging” from chance and absurdity “will hardly lead us closer to the secrets of the Ancient One.”
You can see how rapidly this gets ridiculous.
Indeed, but the absurdity is your own.
Once you stipulate design, you must stipulate a mechanism to effect that design, even if that mechanism is spontaneous appearance through mystic intervention.
The notion that there is a Designer who maintains reason similar to our own has often given scientists and philosophers a reason for reason and so a rationale for rationality. In contrast, Darwinism is ultimately based on absurdity or “chance” as the creative factor that the law of natural selection filters, so it often devolves into mysticism based on large numbers or large amounts of time in which invisible happenings are imagined to take place by “chance.”
There is still no mechanism for creationism so it fails as science. However, it suceeds admirably as a creation myth; though no more valid than other creation myths of other religions. When one teaches a child creationism, they are teaching that child how to be ignorant.
Once you stipulate design, you must stipulate a mechanism to effect that design, even if that mechanism is spontaneous appearance through mystic intervention.
Not true. If design is your first cause, you may still do science to prove how things have changed (degraded, not evolved) from that assumed starting point. You can also support such a contention with experiments that prove a theory of degradation from a complete beginning.
This is one of the problems with evolution. It uses "imperfections" to prove that we are still evolving, while creationists say that things have degraded from perfection. The former perspective leads to such bogus conclusions as vestigial organs and junk DNA, while the latter assumes that we must restore to a previously more perfect state.
In medicine, nearly every (all?) genetic mutation leads to disease, and we endeavor to restore the genome and proteins to normal functioning – that is, to a previously working state. This is done because when we have to be practical, we must recognize that health is a prior condition, evolutionarily speaking – a norm from which the mutated genome is a deviation. This matches creationism, while evolution must merely make weak swats at explaining this obviously reasonable response.
Interestingly, this is in part, I believe, why Francis Collins, head of the human genome project and author of the new controversial book The Langugae of God, believes that evolution has peaked. That is, I think he realizes that (1) mutatations move us away from health, and (2) the genetic code of most organisms is pretty well designed, and (3) the usual pattern of mutations shows regression to a healthy mean, not advancement to some other kind of creature.
Again, no mechanism, no science. It's that simple.
The mechanism for creationism is "mystic intervention." The mechanism for evolution is natural selection.
If science worked in the manner creationists wish, then Allah, Zeus, leprechauns, Santa, and the tooth fairy must also be valid science. The scientific method was created to excise superstition from the process. Hence, creationism by its very nature is not scientific theory for the same reasons leprechauns and Muslim creation myths are not scientific theory.
Seeker, how would you scientifically test between Allah, Zeus, Jehovah, and leprechauns as the creator? You see? Creationism is not science, its superstition. Teaching children that creationism is science is teaching children to be ignorant of the facts. I don't want American children to grow up ignorant Christians. They should be educated Christians; Christians who know true science and not pseudo-science. It's important to protect the scientific method from all the fundamentalists who seek to pervert it for their own ends like Evangelicals and Muslim extremists.
However, it suceeds admirably as a creation myth; though no more valid than other creation myths of other religions.
Only if you are ignorant enough to assume that all creation myths were created equal. They are not. Of course some will match what is currently known of human psychology as well as numerous other lines of evidence better than others, although the issue of the nature of current knowledge that you're matching them to remains. E.g., people who lived at a time when German biologists were publishing "overwhelming" amounts of peer reviewed articles proving eugenics could have tried to match the Bible to such notions and if they failed they would have concluded that the Bible is false although it was eugenics that was false.
When one teaches a child creationism, they are teaching that child how to be ignorant.
When one teaches a child various elements of creationism you are teaching that child basic principles upon which science rests and operates such as: you can't get something for nothing, there is no effect without a cause, etc. In contrast, it has long been a habit of atheistic ignoramuses to believe that you can get something for nothing, thus the injustices typical to the wretched sects of atheism such as those typical to Communism and so on.
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions…
It is, of course, necessary to specify at what time over a person's life span you are citing their beliefs if you want to focus on the personal and the person instead of the information they are stating. As far as the irrelevant goes, I recall a rumor that Einstein was reading Velikovsky's books before he died. If so, he probably realized the inanity of treating all creation myths as equal, although one probably should recognize that many may be an artifact of common descent. Note the Velikovsky Affair and the attempted censorship of any form of challenge to the Darwinian creation myth, that's because creation myths are not equal and Darwinism is especially weak, even to weak challenges. Its weakness is why it is propped up with special pleading about "rules" and "consensus" instead of actual evidence to the point that all the empirical evidence could go against it, yet it would have to be accepted by the supposed "rules of science," definition of science, consensus of scientists or the fact that peer reviewed articles are published. It is typical to pseudo-science for the focus to shift from basic facts, logic and evidence to the supposed definition of science because pseudo-science lives as a parasite on credibility of science.
Again, no mechanism, no science. It's that simple.
I grant you that invoking God as a first cause is an unprovable assumption, while abiogenesis is a mechanism, though not yet proven and in many ways disproven.
But again, beyond assumptions about first causes (origins), science can be done based on these assumptions to prove or disprove all that came after, which is what most of evolutionary biology and creation science is about.
I know you can't separate assumptions from science, nor hopeful mechanisms from actual ones, but that's the evolutionist's willful blind spot.
Again, no mechanism, no science. It’s that simple.
That’s a way of protecting Darwinism by supposed rule or definition again, a shift away from facts, logic and evidence.
I.e.:
(The Design Revolution
by William Dembski :279) (Emphasis added, an inference is scientific, if it isn’t given the special rule that you’ve just pulled out of your own imagination to police scientia then much of science as we know it is not scientific after all.)
The mechanism for creationism is “mystic intervention.” The mechanism for evolution is natural selection.
There are numerous lines of evidence that refute the ignorant notion that sex, death and a limited food supply combined with a struggle for survival among organisms are the “mechanism” by which all Life and life forms have been and are being created. E.g. human beings, not to mention bears and butterflies.
It is Darwinism that relies on mysticism rooted in the imagination of its own adherents, thus the charlatans of Darwinism now “explain” to a gullible public: “Evolution and the environment…has led to a global obesity pandemic…” Yet in the past Darwinian and Malthusian versions of evolution were always said to predict famine and starvation before, that’s because the hypothetical goo typical to Darwinism has no consistency through time and can be used to “explain” one set of empirical facts as well as the opposite set.
If science worked in the manner creationists wish, then Allah, Zeus, leprechauns, Santa, and the tooth fairy must also be valid science.
It has always been odd for those who treat their own imaginations about the past as evidence to claim that admitting to the spiritual in any form will let whatever hobgoblins any schoolboy may imagine back into science, magick and all. This type of projection is absurd on many levels because the main reason that hobgoblins, witchcraft and whatever else one might imagine were banished from scientia as we know it was because a logico-mathematical structure to the verses of the universe was believed in based on belief in a transcendent Creator and verified by empirical evidence.
The scientific method was created to excise superstition from the process.
Exactly, and that’s why you can’t imagine something about the past and claim your Darwinian superstition as scientific evidence. The Darwinian creation myth isn’t even like others, it has not stood the test of time and has not been passed down through the past based on testimony and witness.
Hence, creationism by its very nature is not scientific theory for the same reasons leprechauns and Muslim creation myths are not scientific theory.
That’s ignorant drivel because by “creationism” you also mean intelligent design and the general notion of admitting to the logico-mathematical structure of the Cosmos, the basic principles upon which science rests and is limited like the fact that you can’t get something for nothing, etc. It is only by creationism that the limits of science are recognized and people do not fall into scientism, etc.
Seeker, how would you scientifically test between Allah, Zeus, Jehovah, and leprechauns as the creator? You see? Creationism is not science, its superstition. Teaching children that creationism is science is teaching children to be ignorant of the facts.
Creationists have never said that you can use science to distinguish bewteen Allah, Zeus, etc., because they don’t believe that science encompasses all knowledge the way that Darwinists do. There’s more to life than science and creationists have always recognized the fact that some forms of knowledge are beyond the methods tyipical to science. It is still likely that Zeus, Allah and Jehovah are all beliefs that share a common descent and various lines of non-scientific evidence might be advanced. (Not scientific, yet still evidence as to the truth of something? Oh my!) For instance, reformers sometimes work back against an apparent descent into idolatry:
–Xenophanes text fragments (Colophon: c. 570 – c. 478)
Evidence from the names of God: Deos (Greek, perhaps corrupted to Zeus and drawn down into a corrupted anthropromorphic focus, later reformed back by the philosophers under the new name Theos), Hananim (Korean, the Great One), Shang Ti (Chinese, the Lord of Heaven), Koro (Bantu, the Creator) Magano (Ethopian, the ultimate Creator again, as contrasted to the malevolent Sheit’an), the Great Spirit (American Indian), etc.
Just because science is limited doesn’t mean that one cannot use other lines of evidence to judge a creation myth and so on.
I don’t want American children to grow up ignorant Christians.
Yes you do, just as all Darwinians do. Who controls the education establishment now? Darwinists do, and the longer that children are subjected to the current education system the more ignorant they become.
They should be educated Christians; Christians who know true science and not pseudo-science.
Then why do Darwinians often put pseudo-science in their textbooks, from eugenics before to Haeckel’s frauds to this day?
It’s important to protect the scientific method from all the fundamentalists who seek to pervert it for their own ends like Evangelicals and Muslim extremists.
It’s important to protect the scientific method from those who would take it back to the dark gods of Nature based paganism, the occult, alchemy and magick. I.e., those who deny and hate the unknown God who has been known as Hananim, Shang Ti, Koro, Magano and so on.
As history shows, science follows monotheism like a lapdog and so the Christian West rises high on science and technology just as Islamic civilization once rose much higher than it is now. Most likely, it began to decline when Muslim clerics began to write of the “incoherence of the philosophers” who believed in a Rationale for rationality.
Only if you are ignorant enough to assume that all creation myths were created equal. They are not.
Do you have proof? Let me anticipate what you will argue; you'll argue the Christian creation myth above all others as truth. I'm soooooo shocked!
In contrast, it has long been a habit of atheistic ignoramuses to believe that you can get something for nothing
Indeed, you can't get God from nothing then can you? Oh wait, Christians make an exception for God :) By the rational, "it's ignorant to believe you can get something from nothing," Christians are ignoramuses.
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions…
"…a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
– Albert Einstein
Einstein's words are quite clear.
Seeker,
I understand your point but who is to say that natural selection was not the mechanism of the creator, if there is one? Evolution does not disprove God. It does disprove genesis. There are many Christians who believe evolution is the God's hand at work.
that natural selection was not the mechanism of the creator, if there is one?
Because natural selection does not necessarily lead to advancement in the genome – it merely selects according to what is there. Of course, evolution depends on both natural selection and beneficial mutations that are passed on to progeny. All other natural selection is merely adaptation using genetic information already present.
And the fact is, most, if not all mutations, are not beneficial and NOT passed on to progeny. In fact, evidence for the creation of novel genetic information and usable proteins is still absent, and the examples offered up by evolutionists are weak, and easily arguable.
As I’ve oft said, creationists do not argue the existence of mutations (but they argue that they are harmful, and that the genome is designed to repair itself back to a genetic mean, rather than keep mutations), adaptation (which is just selective application of existing genes), and natural selection. But none of these prove the hopeful monster of macroevolution.
The key pieces that evolutionists need to make this fairty tale a reality are absent, namely beneficial mutations that can be traced to significant taxonomic improvements or positive change in function and morphology.
I think the creationist model, which includes variation within and descent from created “kinds” explains both the morphologic and genetic data we see.
ALELUYA!
what a great and mind refreshing discussion. everything is well explained (to suport the work of creation), however, the danger here is that creationists seem to work a bit of selfrighteouseness here. dont forget to exalt the ROOT!!!!! with all do respect guys: use the WORD, you know that the human discussions are not what the CREATOR has requierd, it is the weapon tested in fire that penetrates through all matters (tissiue,bones,spirit), i beg, back your excelent oppinions and teachings with the quotation from the living word of GOD, humbeling yourslefves and convicting others, all for the glory od the ALLMIGHTY ARCHITECT :)
the ALPHA and OMEGA asked you not to dress up the truth but to preach it boldly. Come back to the cross and the root of salvation.
May God bless you all and lead you in all truth by the His SPIRIT OF TRUTH!
perhaps both the evolutionists AND the fundementalist christian creationists are wrong.
I think that evolution is completly stupid. First of all i am a supporter of creative design or intelligent esign whatever you want to call it. In the Bible it says that we were created in the image of God. That could not be possible is we evolved from apes. God made us in his image and he is not an ape or a monkey or chimp or anyother type of monkey animal. And there are so many missing links in the evil-ution chain. And people might say that there are no fossils because they didnt die and be burryed under the right conditions to form a fossil. This is stupid. There might have been many who would have died like that but it doesnt mean that there are non that could have survived. We are not cars. We are not just made differently each time we are born. Cars can have headlights added in the next model but we would have to slowly develop those parts which would mean that we would have people with parts that fit in the gaps of the chain but there arent! I believe that god made us how we are today and that it has never changed. I can see things adapting but not going from a ugly hairy little monkey to a good looking race such as us!
I agree with Alice, Geoffrey.
I agree with Alice, Geoffrey.
You believe that creationists are stoopider than you, eh? Nice belief, but then again, I *know* I am not stupid, and of course, *I* believe that evolutionists are deluded, for the reasons I explained clearly in Mass Delusion.
But Geoffrey, your comment WAS unintelligent, if not nearly unintelligible.
Here you go Seeker, more proof of evolution which you need to deny deny deny! Too bad most creationists are not technical enough to even understand this, but with your biology background, you might.
Ken Miller on Apes and Humans
That's like me saying the same every time I present evidence. I'm not scared by one piece of evidence. While Miller's hypothesis is interesting, even compelling, it is not the only way to look at the evidence, and it does not prove relatedness.
First, while it seems that there may have been a fusion event in the past for humans, it may only mean that in the past, humans had an ancestor with 48 chromosomes. That ancestor could have been fully human, and not ape.
Unless you can prove that either (1) by separating these fused chromosomes, you could turn a human embryo in to an ape, or (2) by creating a similar fusion, you could turn a simian embryo into a human.
BTW, I have always wondered about why humans born before the Noahic flood lived about 800 years, while those after only about 90. Perhaps this fusion event changed how we age? I'll have to see if Chromosome 2 has anything to do with that. Maybe not, but interesting to think about.
Second, while evolution may have predicted such a fusion (that is impressive), what of all of the other things things that it has failed to predict, or predicted falsely, etc.? One home run does not a baseball player make.
Third, for such a wonderful fusion to have taken place, you would have to have some amazing genetic gymnastics for it to actually stick – like it has to happen in the germ cells of both a male and a female, and then they have to mate. I'm sure you could dream up such a scenario, but that's one of many obstacles to overcome.
Fourth, the largest obstacle is that such fusions and mutations, like all such mutations, are almost universally bad.
Anyway, nice find, I will do some more research.
That list of ten is a slow-motion train wreck of bad thinking.
The smell of peanut butter fills the air.
Tornado, junkyard and a 747 anybody?
Number 4 actually has the gall to use the SLoT argument.
Anybody, ABSOLUTELY ANYBODY, could take two minutes out of their busy schedule to to see just how much hogwash those 'flaws' are.
Truely, deeply, madly stupid.
…and boring.
Get a life.
Anyway, nice find, I will do some more research.
Ya, I wonder what Genesis will say.
"Ya, I wonder what Genesis will say."
Now then Cineaste, don't be too hard on Seeker.
I'm sure he'll do REAL research this time. He may even go to the best source of scientific knowledge in the land.
That 'special' place called AIG. (giggle) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504
Peanut Butter. Mmmmmmm.
Now I know that this is INTELLIGABLE!
Systematic gaps occur between kinds in the fossil record. None of the intermediate fossils that would be found between single-celled organisms and invertibrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and birds or mammals, or between "lower" mammals and primates. While evolutionists might assume that these intermediate forms existed at one time, none of the fundreds of millions of fossils found so far provide the missing links. The few suggested links such as Archeopterix and the horse series have been rengered questionable by more detailed data.
Also evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five "heads" in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it's given, non-life will not become alive.
-Why dont we find these gradations in the fossil record, and why, instead of collecting thousands of identical individuals , do we not find more intermeadiary forms?
-How is it that the most ancient fossil beds are rich in a variety of diverse forms of life, instead of the few early types of Darwins's theory leads us to expect?
-How is it that no species have been seen to evolve during human history, and that the 4000 years which separates us from the mummies of Egypt have been insufficient to modify the crocidile and the Ibis?
Then God said,"Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the Earth, and over all the Earth." Tere is what genisis has to say
Seeker is a mentally ill man who has had severe problems dealing with real life. He is a repressed homosexual who has been unable to reconcile his sexuality with his fundamentalist religious views. Efforts, medical and faith based have failed. Now he has them all confused. He is also, unfortunately, a sexual sadist. That is, he gets aroused by the humiliation and pain of others. If he were not as unbalanced as he is, he could find a way to integrate this sexuality into a healthful, ethical life. Unfortunately that is very hard to do if you practice any fundementalist faith. The hate you see towards gays on this blog is SELF HATE – nothing more and nothing less. You can never change his mind about anything. The walls of denial have been built up too much. He would have to be truthful with himself. That – short of another mental breakdown – is not going to happen.
Christians cannot be gay. So seeker tries hard – very hard – to be straight with only a few lapses. That he feels very bad about. And very guilty. The cycle of shame continues. You all should feel sorry for him – sorrow and pity, not anger are the appropriate responses here. However, he is not innocent. He has done some unchristian things. Some sexual things that are wrong, whether you are straight or gay. Can you deal with the truth Seeker? will you admit your sinfulness to the world? Or will you continue to proclaim your righteousness when you know your heart is black?
Liar.
Mmmm, more peanut butter.
Geoffrey, permit me to ask you a few questions:
1) Are you doing a parody of a creationist? For if you are, you may be overdoing it a little. The spelling mistakes, while giving that special nutty texture, are just a little too much.
2) Assuming this is not a parody, are you on any serious medications?
3) In the very beginning of the video “Peanut Butter, the Atheist’s Nightmare” there is an old guy in a suit. Do you recognize him?
4) Where did you cut-and-paste all your material from?
(Hint! This question relates to question three)
6) Which American University do you teach at? Liberty or Bob Jones?
5) How old do you think the Earth is?
Peanut Butter Christians. Yummy.
I didn't copy and paste, I talked with my teacher and typed up what we talked about.And I don't recognise a man in a black suit.
"I talked with my teacher and typed up what we talked about."
Are you home schooled? Is it from Bible class?
No, i'm not, me and my class are currently creating a court case in which we are trying to prove if evolution actually happened. During this process I found this site and am now arguing my case which is against evolution.
"No, i'm not, me and my class are currently creating a court case in which we are trying to prove if evolution actually happened."
Evolution is happening now. Though you can't see yourself growing old, it's still happening.
Geoffrey said” Systematic gaps occur between kinds in the fossil record.”
There is no such thing as a ‘kind’ in biology. This sentence doesn’t make sense.
Geoffrey said…
“None of the intermediate fossils that would be found between single-celled organisms and invertibrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and birds or mammals, or between “lower” mammals and primates. While evolutionists might assume that these intermediate forms existed at one time, none of the fundreds of millions of fossils found so far provide the missing links. The few suggested links such as Archeopterix and the horse series have been rengered questionable by more detailed data.”
This is the ‘there are no transitional fossils’ argument.
Easily refuted. Please type in ‘transitional fossils’ on any search engine. You’ll find plenty of examples.
Geoffrey said “Also evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low.”
What do you mean ‘evolutionist’? Do you mean a scientist or a biologist perhaps?
“Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five “heads” in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance.”
Who says this kind of rubbish? Have you ever read this in a biology textbook?
Have you ever seen this displayed in a natural history museum?
The only people who say this are creationists themselves. This is just cut-and-pasted from the Internet. Type in the argument used into a search engine and you can find it word for word on a creationist web-site. Please type it in now.
It’s a ‘strawman’ argument using an especially dumb ‘tornado in a junk yard’ argument..
“Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it’s given, non-life will not become alive.”
Abiogensis is not the same as evolution.
Look up ‘abiogenesis. Look up ‘evolution’.
They are not the same.
Non-scientific terms, the ‘no transitional fossils’ argument, ‘strawman’ arguments and mixing up evolution with abiogenesis are all standard tactics of creationists.
Real science and real scientists don’t use them.
NASA does not use them. Educated people do not use them.
Please do not take my word for this!
Check out any standard biology text book you like.
Contact any biology department of any major university in the world and ask somebody there. They will tell you the same thing.
If you want to get your science out of a creationist web-site, then that’s your business.
But remember, garbage in-garbage out!
(…Oh, almost forgot…)
Geoffrey, not the guy in the black suit.
The old guy at the very beginning of the video (the first ten seconds).
A very famous creationist.
He's a true Peanut-Butter Christian. Original recipe.
and…
How old do you think the Earth is?
If your talking about the movie "Unlocing the mysteries of life" then yes that is where i get some of my information from.
such as the information below.
This is just a copy of my notes that i took during the movie.
-irreducable complexity
-Whey you have multicomponent parts to any given organell or system in a cell all of which are necesary for function-that is if you remove 1 part you lose function of that system.
-there are, in total, 40 different protein parts which are necessary for the bacterial flageller motor to work, and if any of those parts are missing or made incorrectly or in the incorect sequence, then you either get a flageller motor that doesnt work because its missing the hook regionor its missing the drive shaft or it doesnt even get build within the cell.
-according to natural selection can only sucee if these random genetic changes provide soem advantage to the evolving organism in its struggle for survival. Natural selection is scrutinizing the slightest cariations, rejecting those that are bad or not advantageous, and preserving all that are good.-Darwin
i will post more tommorrow
4.6 billion years old
Ha! Cedric you've done your homework in combating creationism and "Intelligent Design" :) Nice links.
I take a bow. :)
Hey guys, id just like to comment on all of your remarks. I am on Geoff's side, but i think that you all have very good argument and i was to ask if we can use some of them in our case.?
hey Morgan, just wana say thanks for stopping by. What class are you in anyway? Well guys i would finish my notes but i have lost them and if you want my full name its Geoffrey D. Montalvo And if you live in Cali, or went to CSUB you might know my pappy. Homer Montalvo he was the dr. of administrations or some jip like that
and its irreducable complexity and the book is the black box
Im in computer class
LOl. Wel if you can find some stuff to ad this s quite fun. And so far i havent got real serious.
Well, I'm chuffed that people liked my links.
Permit me to add two more.
Talkorigins.org
Pandasthumb.org
Talkorigins is a one-stop shopping mall of info on fossils, evolution, and creationist canards. Check out the index and hunt around to your hearts content.
My favourite site however is Pandasthumb.org
Most of the contributors are either working scientists or have a strong background in science.
Some of the articles can be technical, others funny and still others just a darned good read.
(Warning: They can be cynical at times due to heavy troll activity. If you post a question, explain the 'why' and 'who' parts carefully.)
Try not to post a question that has been answered before. Reading the archives helps.
I hang out there all the time.
Geoffrey, your father has a fine first name. I hope he insists that you read The Iliad.
If you ever get to South Korea, let me know at pandasthumb.org
what do you meen when you say that my father has a fine first name? Homer is my grandpa, i call him my pappy. Anyways i will search out the iliad and if i decide to read it i will tell you when i have finished but i doubt that i will read it i am a very bussy person
This has become more of a little talk site than an argument now that i am done with my arguing here i will see you all later but wil continue to check here if there is something that i may argue against.
Yes, talkorigins and pandersthumb are both pro-evolutionary cesspools. They have pro-creationist analogs including trueorigins.org and uncommondescent.com, to mention just two.
Evolution is a nice fairy tale for those who need a creation myth. We don't argue about it too much here because you can't argue with believers ;)
EVLOUTION IS A CRACKPOT IDEA TO EXPLAIN STUFF NONBELIVERS CANT POSSIBLEY COMPREHEND
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
WE WIN THE PROSECUTION WINS EVOLUTIONS HAS BEEN REFUTED IN THE CASE!!!! WE WIN!!!!
cha blam!!!
boo yaa!!!!!
We have we have killed you killed you
bo ya
cha blam baby!!
woot!
thanks to me we have won! The jurry mentioned what i said and also the big bang theory that is what tey said proved them wrong~!!! CHA BLAM BABY UMPH UMPH UMPH UMPH!
Before I begin I would like to state that I am a christian and I love God with all my heart. Now to all the evolutionists out there I must ask what is so terrible about God? Now if we were talking about a horrible evil group of people I could understand all the hatred and resentment, but no we are talking about a group of people who try live by positive moral standards and belive in a higher power who loves them. Is that so terrible?…and yet more and more people I see are ridiculing this well-meaning group of people because they continue to follow such a clearly stupid and dangerous idea like God, a being who promotes charity, kindness, love, and equality… what terrible things to belive in…right? What harm has God done to society, now yes there have been some individuals who have tried to justify horrid actions with religious text but let us not forget that evolution is also far from blameless. Terrible actions like the holocaust, Imperialism, and genocide all stem from people who belive that other groups are further down the evolutionary ladder than they are and so they must be destroyed. Both sides have their flaws but at least good comes out of religion what good comes from evolution?
I agree with Zach. True, evil comes out of religion, from Christian Crusades to Muslim Jihad to Buddhist and Hindu suppression of other religions. But I think the good things religion has done outweighs the bad.
"Evolutionists want to use rigorous logical methods to generate theories that fit facts. Most will do this even if their personal opinions have to change.
If a creationist were to offer irrefutable scientific proof that a Judeo-Christian anthropomorphic personification were the only mechanism for species change, evolutionists would have to change their theories to accommodate this proof. (This would have to be a whopper of a proof!)"
Creationists have offered some proof, you guys aren't responding to it, I notice
Ideaman:
Thanks very much for posting, but in the future, please help us read your input by:
– posting shorter comments
– using html markup (italics or bold) to help with readability
– referring to sites that have a better design (and URL!) than those you provided on angelfire – those sites look very dubious. I know it's the content that is important, but those sites look like a 10 year old made them many years ago.
To Aquafina: How does seeker's sexual orientation relate to evolution or creation? Also, it appears that some folks are opposed to ID just because they don't like Christians.
The rest was a response to cineaste's post, which was also pretty long…
Has anyone ever noticed that most Creationists try to poke holes in Evolutionism with questions regarding complexity?
For example, Kirk Cameron was on the O'Reilly Factor attempting to disprove Evolutionism through "logic". He reasoned that something complex like a camera must have had a designer. He likened it to the eye. Something that is far more complex than a camera, so therefore, it must have had a designer. This makes no sense whatsoever. The camera is very different from the eye. It is an inorganic creation that is incapable of development. The eye, however, IS capable of changing, hence the various adaptations in the numerous animals across the planet.
And Creationist proof often ends up being simple conjecture. No real evidence is given, usually just an ambiguous, "because the Bible said so" type answer.
You cannot argue with a Creationist because there is nothing to argue. A good Anti-Evolutionism Activist will dance around the subject; taking pot-shots at the errors scientists make and stressing the extremes of Evolutionary theory.
Why don't they use their brains (if they have any that is) and get this fact:
Things DID NOT evolve by chance *where the hell did they even get that???*
It is a matter of certain chemiclas/elements having certain properties and these chemiclas/elements reacting with each other in certain ways.
Creationists is the "Elite Retard Unit" of the human race.
As said above by another poster, anyone who uses "Evolution flies directly in the face of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics." as an argument _obviously_ knows NOTHING about thermodynamics.
Protip: Someone who has a cursive knowledge of thermodynamics knows that any physical process can occur spontaneously at constant pressure and temperature as long as the Gibbs free energy is reduced in the process.
The variation in the Gibbs free energy of a system can be expressed as:
(dG) = (dH) – T(dS)
where G is Gibbs free energy, H is enthalpy, T is temperature in Kelvin and S is entropy.
It's easy to see why processes where entropy is increased (dS > 0) tend to be spontaneous and processes where complexity and organization increase (dS < 0) generally aren't. ON THE OTHER HAND, lots of entropy-reducing events can happen (dS < 0) as long as there is an input of energy (dH < 0).
Therefore, since we DO have an big-ass energy input (i.e. the sun), the second law of thermodynamics has nothing to say here except that the creation of carbon-based life ex nihilo seems VERY MUCH MORE LIKELY than the creation of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient god.
So, to finish, let me just give you some friendly atheist advice: using thermodynamics to "disprove" evolution is not only "not even wrong", it's actually ironic given the differential in entropy between us and some hypothetical infinitely complex god (thermodynamic joke; you wouldn't understand).
References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbs_free_energy, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong