Evidence to Change a Skeptic's Mind

What I would say: I really think that evolution is superior to creationism, which has no backing. I also really just hate how creationists misuse science to attack evolution.

What you sould see: I really think that evolution ... has no backing. I also really hate ... evolution.

__________________
Bushido216

You folks are more than welcome to believe whatever you want. I will observe, however, that there is not a single concrete, indisputable, piece of evidence that supports the origin of life by natural processes. I tossed out that quote (quite in context, by the way) because it is true (I have several hundred others from high powered credentialled scientists on both sides of the issue that all say essentially the same thing: impossible). It has been shown over and over for a hundred and fifty years that life does not and can not arise spontaneously. Then here came the secularists who assert that if only enough time is allowed the impossible becomes certain. Punctuated equilibrium indeed. I ask you, where are the transitional forms? If life arose by chance and one creature evolved into another, then there should be myriads of transitionals. But despite 150 years of searching there are none. There are certain similarities among species, but that does not imply common descent.

When I was in college (MS, physiology, minor in genetics) evolution was taught as a matter of fact. I noticed, however, that my esteemed professors dodged all the important questions. None of them wanted to talk about the mathmatics of probability. None of them wanted to talk about how systems that are interlocked and interdependent, but performing different functions, could have, by chance, appeared at the same time. None of them wanted to talk about irreducible complexity either. That set me to wondering if what I was hearing was science or science fiction.

Next, the so-called geologic column turns out not to exist outside the immagination. Sure, limited segments of it are all over the place, but sequence reversal is quite common. Now how could that be?

While I am at it, how about the several hundred environmental factors that have to all be present, at the same time, for life as we know it to exist at all?

Then we have the known-to be-fake drawings of Haeckel still soiling the pages of biology texts right along side the immaginary horse series. Kids eat it up because it is all they hear, and they are hearing it from people they trust. Trouble is, some of us get smarter with age and experience (sadly many of us don't) and fairy tales get recognized for what they are.

No. Mathmatics alone conclusively demonstrates that even if the universe was 1000 times older than the alleged 15 billion years the possibility of forming a single 300 base pair protein chain by chance still carries an exponent in the thousands.

But lets set all that aside and go right to the heart of the problem. If evolution is true, then man is a law unto himself, accountable to no one. But if the universe and everything in it was designed and called into existence by God, then man is responsible and answerable to God. People like Richard Dawkins, the high priest of evolution, know this, and plainly say that the reson they adhere to evolution is because, "we can not allow a divine foot in the door". Evolution is not believed because the wight of evidence compells belief, it is believed because the alternative is completely unacceptable to the corrupt nature of fallen man.

__________________
God said it. That settles it, whether you believe it or not.

"If you believe what you like in the Gospel, and reject what you don't like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself." --Augustine

"These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also; ..." Acts 17:6b

Bob Moore,

first you throw out a 24 year old quote, out of context I might add and now it's the old standby equating abiogenesis with evolution. Next will be a pointless Big Bang comment (with wrong definitions to boot).

Reading further you are bringing out all the Hovindisms (or AIGistics.)

Useless probability arguments that don't ask the correct question.
The old geologic column LIE - there are many places with complete columns
No transitional forms - another good old standby of the dumb

With regards to your age, I have noticed the most intransigent Creationists are the teenagers who don't know any better and the over 50 crowd who just have had too many years of brainwashing.

PS

You haven't even mentioned mythical floods, lunar dust and decaying magnetic fields. Next post I guess. happy trolling.

Captain Jack,

Sorry sir. You are the one without a clue. Are you capable of refuting anything I said?

By the way, if life arose by purely natural processes, then why do you bother to call yourself a Christian? What is the point?

__________________
God said it. That settles it, whether you believe it or not.

"If you believe what you like in the Gospel, and reject what you don't like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself." --Augustine

"These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also; ..." Acts 17:6b

Christ is necessary for our salvation, regardless of how life arose.

__________________
Bushido216

Hey guys,

I got that other standby - I'm not a Christian unless I'm a gullible idiot.

You're right Bob. My scientific training is without merit. I shall resign my tenure tomorrow and devote myself to defeating those evilutionists. Thanks for saving me.

Some of Bob's quotes:


Try Googling 'transitional forms' - there are lots of them.

Try 'Googling' on 'complete geologic column' - somwhere on the net there is a list with about 30 sites around the world where the column is complete.

Try learning some biochemistry and then you can put a more realistic prob. calculation up there. A 300 amino acid protein doesn't need all 300 identical. Only specific active sites on the protein need be the same. Also your calculation assumes a chemical reaction is the putting together of 300 separate units in a random manner. THIS IS NOT TRUE. Chemical reactions are directed processes and the sub-units can be of variable size.

Refute (with some effort on your part) over.

Very true. And since it is true, how is it that you seem willing to ignore this: John 1:1-3 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made"?

__________________
God said it. That settles it, whether you believe it or not.

"If you believe what you like in the Gospel, and reject what you don't like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself." --Augustine

"These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also; ..." Acts 17:6b

Bob, the problem is that you aren't addressing the thread, and what you are posting are all know false comments.

If you would like someone to refute what you said, Might I recomend you not off topic the thread and post your evidence against evolution in a new thread. I believe the point of this thread was for evidence For creationism.

You also seem to be making the common mistake that evolution = atheism. This is false, since it is completly possible for god to have created using evolution. Not only possible, but if he created the earth, that is the evidence he left behind.

__________________

Wei wu wei

Green faeries

Then why do you impersonate a Christian by using the Anglican cross as a symbol. That is at least dishonest.

And what scientific training would that be?

I see. You can't answer the question, so you resort to kindergarden level sarcasm.

__________________
God said it. That settles it, whether you believe it or not.

"If you believe what you like in the Gospel, and reject what you don't like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself." --Augustine

"These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also; ..." Acts 17:6b