Looking for Evidence for Atheistic Evolution

[lordking]

I'm preparing to do a real debate on creation and evolution and I want to be sure that there are not, yet, any scientific explanations and scientific evidence to conclusively refute my claims, so I wanted to crowd-source it.

I am a young earth creationist, I personally believe the bible is the inerrant, infallible word of the living God. I do not believe there is any scientific evidence for Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, the big bang, or stellar evolution.

I understand that there is evidence, mountains of evidence, but no scientific evidence: I'm asking now just in case that's wrong because I understand that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, however I do believe that there is an evidence of absence in whether or not evolution did occur as the textbooks teach it.

I'm not trying to prove creation here, I'm trying to disprove evolution. I refuse to accept the false dilemma logical fallacy that if evolution is not true, then creation is true. I have evidence to support young earth creationism, but that's not what I'm worried about here.

1. Mathematics vs Evolution: The probability of chance
In mathematics we accept that anything that is less likely than 1 in 10^50th power is impossible. It's not impossible, but trying to get the event you want to occur out of 10^50th power of other events is but the fever dream of a madman, less likely than winning a global lottery. The estimated probability of life forming by chance is 1 in 10^39970th power. In reality, that does not represent impossibility, but logically it does.

The unlikelihood of something is not necessarily evidence that something didn't happen, but there's one more problem with chance. What stops it from happening constantly?

If the big bang is responsible for the creation of the time, space, the laws, and matter, without intelligent interaction, out of nothing what is stopping it from happening right now? If intelligence created the universe in order for him to create it again, he needs a reason. If chance, or an undirected process created the universe, in order for it not to do it again, it needs a reason. My proposal is, if chance were responsible for creation, creation would happen constantly.

I understand if you can explain why it did happen and can't happen now, but I'm looking for scientific evidence, including real observations by scientific investigations which explain why creation, without intelligent interaction, only occurred once, and not just a religious worldview that gives a viable explanation to an irrational concept.

2. Physics vs Evolution: The Law of Entropy.
The second law of thermodynamics is a simple and infinitely observable one. This law proposes that things get worse over time "Complexity in a closed system decreases over time." By definition, evolution proposes the opposite. The idea is that we are stronger and faster and smarter than our ancestors who lived millions of years ago. The Law of Entropy would say otherwise. According to the law of entropy, our ancestors endured less disease, deformity, and even lived longer, because we are the decayed replica of something that existed years ago. In order for evolution to be true we would see new species forming rapidly, new stars forming rapidly, and the fossil record of ancestry would be shaped like darwin's tree in some way.

To my knowledge what we've actually observed is that species are going extinct all the time, but new species are not forming. We see stars blow up all the time but we never see stars form, yet there are trillions upon trillions of them out there. A Japanese archaeologist observed that the actual tree of life is upside down. There are less species today than there were before. By following that pattern we can conclude that there was a spontaneous creation of all species in the beginning, and we're just left with what survived today and few extras from micro-evolution (i.e. wolves, dogs, coyotes).

What scientific evidence is there that evolution is capable of explaining the naturalistic creation of a universe that increases complexity over time. I believe that, in order to comply with the law of entropy , the universe requires a spontaneous creation. I want to know if there is any scientific evidence that gives evolution the right to defy the Law of Entropy without intelligent interaction.

We defy the law of entropy all the time, we have repairmen, mechanics and doctors. We use intelligence to defy the law of entropy, and nature uses natural systems more complicated than any machine we've ever created to defy the law of entropy.

3. Biology vs Evolution: Genetic Homeostasis, Bio Genesis and Genetic Information
Genetic homeostasis is a scientific observation that contradicts macro-evolution. Genetic homeostasis represents the fact that are barriers to the genetic changes a species can undergo when breeding. Mutations are almost always harmful and the changes they make do not compare to the amount of changes necessary to go from a dinosaur to a bird. There is evidence that these barriers cannot be broken, because humans have tried, that new complex genetic information cannot be made from mutations to create a new species.

What scientific evidence is there that natural selection or the mechanisms of punctuated equilibrium could cause a species to break the barriers of genetic homeostasis?

DNA. Nothing more needs to be said, no respectable scientist can call this the result of an undirected process. DNA is the most complex chemical in the universe. It's so unbelievably complex it consists of a language with it's own grammar and syntax and mathematical algorithmic expressions. This is my next argument, but I don't think there is anything more to be said in opposition about it

4. Psychology and Sociology vs Evolution
Whoever came up with vestigial organs doesn't know a single thing about biology. For example: If the appendix actually was vestigial, your body would have eradicated it by the time you were 13 years old. Your body doesn't keep organs alive that don't do any work. That's why your muscles get weak when you have a broken leg and can't walk on it for weeks. If your appendix was vestigial, yes, you would still be born with it, and your children born with it, but your body would have killed it off.

If you've ever read the sad story of the little girl genie, whom no other child abuser in all history has been able to have a greater life-long psychological effect on the innocent child. Since Genie was neglected and never spoken to the major parts of her brain which register speech died off. The body said: "If you're not going to use it, why should I waste precious food keeping it alive?" Like a worker in a factory that does nothing, he's going to get fired, the body is hardcore.

Now historic evolution says that in the paleolithic/neolithic era, man developed speech because they needed better order in the societies they were creating. My question is which came first, the babies who were capable of learning the language, or the adults who were capable of teaching it? If you never learn a language, you'll be little more communicative than a dog, you might be able to decipher sounds and respond with different syllables and noises, but grammar and syntax are physically beyond your comprehension.

Is there a scientific explanation for how millions of years of evolution humans could ever develop a language that only the adults would have been capable of speaking if they themselves were taught it as a baby?

5. Population vs Evolution:
It's entirely mathematically possible for a younger earth to produce a population like we have today. However, due to the exponential nature of population growth, it is inconceivable that the population of man today would only be 7 billion after millions of years.

In just 200 years, based on consensus, the population rose from 1 billion to 7 billion. What scientific evidence is there that this trend would not have given rise to a much greater population of humanity over millions of years?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually there are mountains of scientific evidence for the theory of evolution.

By the way why add "atheist" to the title? All scientific theories are "atheist" if evolution is "atheist". You should not be mad just because it shows that parts of the Bible are false.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But let's see what your arguments are:

! Math, I am sorry but I have never seen a valid mathematical argument against evolution. Every single one that I have ever seen was a strawman argument that misstated how evolution occurred. With those sorts of arguments if there is an error in the premise there is no need to even do any math to show that they are wrong.

2. You got your law of entropy wrong to start out with. It says that in an isolated system the amount of entropy goes up in time. The Earth is essentially a closed system. That means energy can get in and out but very little matter does so. There are two other possibilities. There is an open system, a car engine is an example of such. Both energy and matter can enter and leave. And then there is an isolated system. Neither energy nor matter can enter and leave and that is the one where your usage of the SLoT applies.

There is no problem with Entropy and Evolution.

3. Mutations are not always harmful. There are specific examples of mutations that are on the whole beneficial. You don't seem to understand too much in the way of biology. Whether a mutation is positive or negative is very often dependent upon the environment it is found in. You can't over simplify a complex reaction and claim to win when it can be shown to be positive in some cases and negative in others.

4. You don't understand either biology or what a vestigial organ is. The appendix is vestigial. It does not do the same job it used to do. That does not mean that a new use for it cannot arise. Please. Learn some basic biology before you go making such sweeping and errant statements.

5. Flat out wrong. You made a mistake a high school student would not make. You assumed that population growth has always been steady and always been positive. It hasn't been. Yes, because of the development of civilization the human population has grown rather steadily over the last 2,000 years. But even then there were dips and rises and proves nothing. Plug the growth rate for bacteria into the same equation and you will find that there should be more bacteria than there is mass for the Earth.

 

[crjmurray]

I'm preparing to do a real debate on creation and evolution and I want to be sure that there are not, yet, any scientific explanations and scientific evidence to conclusively refute my claims, so I wanted to crowd-source it.

I am a young earth creationist, I personally believe the bible is the inerrant, infallible word of the living God. I do not believe there is any scientific evidence for Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, the big bang, or stellar evolution.

I understand that there is evidence, mountains of evidence, but no scientific evidence: I'm asking now just in case that's wrong because I understand that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, however I do believe that there is an evidence of absence in whether or not evolution did occur as the textbooks teach it.

I'm not trying to prove creation here, I'm trying to disprove evolution. I refuse to accept the false dilemma logical fallacy that if evolution is not true, then creation is true. I have evidence to support young earth creationism, but that's not what I'm worried about here.

1. Mathematics vs Evolution: The probability of chance
In mathematics we accept that anything that is less likely than 1 in 10^50th power is impossible. It's not impossible, but trying to get the event you want to occur out of 10^50th power of other events is but the fever dream of a madman, less likely than winning a global lottery. The estimated probability of life forming by chance is 1 in 10^39970th power. In reality, that does not represent impossibility, but logically it does.

The unlikelihood of something is not necessarily evidence that something didn't happen, but there's one more problem with chance. What stops it from happening constantly?

If the big bang is responsible for the creation of the time, space, the laws, and matter, without intelligent interaction, out of nothing what is stopping it from happening right now? If intelligence created the universe in order for him to create it again, he needs a reason. If chance, or an undirected process created the universe, in order for it not to do it again, it needs a reason. My proposal is, if chance were responsible for creation, creation would happen constantly.

I understand if you can explain why it did happen and can't happen now, but I'm looking for scientific evidence, including real observations by scientific investigations which explain why creation, without intelligent interaction, only occurred once, and not just a religious worldview that gives a viable explanation to an irrational concept.

2. Physics vs Evolution: The Law of Entropy.
The second law of thermodynamics is a simple and infinitely observable one. This law proposes that things get worse over time "Complexity in a closed system decreases over time." By definition, evolution proposes the opposite. The idea is that we are stronger and faster and smarter than our ancestors who lived millions of years ago. The Law of Entropy would say otherwise. According to the law of entropy, our ancestors endured less disease, deformity, and even lived longer, because we are the decayed replica of something that existed years ago. In order for evolution to be true we would see new species forming rapidly, new stars forming rapidly, and the fossil record of ancestry would be shaped like darwin's tree in some way.

To my knowledge what we've actually observed is that species are going extinct all the time, but new species are not forming. We see stars blow up all the time but we never see stars form, yet there are trillions upon trillions of them out there. A Japanese archaeologist observed that the actual tree of life is upside down. There are less species today than there were before. By following that pattern we can conclude that there was a spontaneous creation of all species in the beginning, and we're just left with what survived today and few extras from micro-evolution (i.e. wolves, dogs, coyotes).

What scientific evidence is there that evolution is capable of explaining the naturalistic creation of a universe that increases complexity over time. I believe that, in order to comply with the law of entropy , the universe requires a spontaneous creation. I want to know if there is any scientific evidence that gives evolution the right to defy the Law of Entropy without intelligent interaction.

We defy the law of entropy all the time, we have repairmen, mechanics and doctors. We use intelligence to defy the law of entropy, and nature uses natural systems more complicated than any machine we've ever created to defy the law of entropy.

3. Biology vs Evolution: Genetic Homeostasis, Bio Genesis and Genetic Information
Genetic homeostasis is a scientific observation that contradicts macro-evolution. Genetic homeostasis represents the fact that are barriers to the genetic changes a species can undergo when breeding. Mutations are almost always harmful and the changes they make do not compare to the amount of changes necessary to go from a dinosaur to a bird. There is evidence that these barriers cannot be broken, because humans have tried, that new complex genetic information cannot be made from mutations to create a new species.

What scientific evidence is there that natural selection or the mechanisms of punctuated equilibrium could cause a species to break the barriers of genetic homeostasis?

DNA. Nothing more needs to be said, no respectable scientist can call this the result of an undirected process. DNA is the most complex chemical in the universe. It's so unbelievably complex it consists of a language with it's own grammar and syntax and mathematical algorithmic expressions. This is my next argument, but I don't think there is anything more to be said in opposition about it

4. Psychology and Sociology vs Evolution
Whoever came up with vestigial organs doesn't know a single thing about biology. For example: If the appendix actually was vestigial, your body would have eradicated it by the time you were 13 years old. Your body doesn't keep organs alive that don't do any work. That's why your muscles get weak when you have a broken leg and can't walk on it for weeks. If your appendix was vestigial, yes, you would still be born with it, and your children born with it, but your body would have killed it off.

If you've ever read the sad story of the little girl genie, whom no other child abuser in all history has been able to have a greater life-long psychological effect on the innocent child. Since Genie was neglected and never spoken to the major parts of her brain which register speech died off. The body said: "If you're not going to use it, why should I waste precious food keeping it alive?" Like a worker in a factory that does nothing, he's going to get fired, the body is hardcore.

Now historic evolution says that in the paleolithic/neolithic era, man developed speech because they needed better order in the societies they were creating. My question is which came first, the babies who were capable of learning the language, or the adults who were capable of teaching it? If you never learn a language, you'll be little more communicative than a dog, you might be able to decipher sounds and respond with different syllables and noises, but grammar and syntax are physically beyond your comprehension.

Is there a scientific explanation for how millions of years of evolution humans could ever develop a language that only the adults would have been capable of speaking if they themselves were taught it as a baby?

5. Population vs Evolution:
It's entirely mathematically possible for a younger earth to produce a population like we have today. However, due to the exponential nature of population growth, it is inconceivable that the population of man today would only be 7 billion after millions of years.

In just 200 years, based on consensus, the population rose from 1 billion to 7 billion. What scientific evidence is there that this trend would not have given rise to a much greater population of humanity over millions of years?

I'm sorry, but you have a major failure in your very first point. I don't know where this "1 in 10^50 is mathematically impossible" quote I keep hearing comes from, but I only ever see it on creationist sites. However, even if that quote came from a legitimate source it would be fallacious. You can perform acts with far more improbable odds by using a deck of cards. Calculating the odds after an event and then declaring it impossible due to probability is ridiculous. And where does this 10^39970 figure come from?

Before we even get done with the first point you have a second major failure. The big bang is not evolution. The two have nothing to do with each other. If someone disproved the big bang theory tomorrow, it would have no bearing on the theory of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm sorry, but you have a major failure in your very first point. I don't know where this "1 in 10^50 is mathematically impossible" quote I keep hearing comes from, but I only ever see it on creationist sites. However, even if that quote came from a legitimate source it would be fallacious. You can perform acts with far more improbable odds by using a deck of cards. Calculating the odds after an event and then declaring it impossible due to probability is ridiculous. And where does this 10^39970 figure come from?

Before we even get done with the first point you have a second major failure. The big bang is not evolution. The two have nothing to do with each other. If someone disproved the big bang theory tomorrow, it would have no bearing on the theory of evolution.

Hmm, a wall of text that consists only of PRATT's and then nothing. It looks like just another hit and run creationist.

 

[crjmurray]

Hmm, a wall of text that consists only of PRATT's and then nothing. It looks like just another hit and run creationist.

Say it ain't so.....

 

[sfs]

I'm preparing to do a real debate on creation and evolution and I want to be sure that there are not, yet, any scientific explanations and scientific evidence to conclusively refute my claims, so I wanted to crowd-source it.

I am a young earth creationist, I personally believe the bible is the inerrant, infallible word of the living God. I do not believe there is any scientific evidence for Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, the big bang, or stellar evolution.

I understand that there is evidence, mountains of evidence, but no scientific evidence: I'm asking now just in case that's wrong because I understand that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, however I do believe that there is an evidence of absence in whether or not evolution did occur as the textbooks teach it.

I'm not trying to prove creation here, I'm trying to disprove evolution. I refuse to accept the false dilemma logical fallacy that if evolution is not true, then creation is true. I have evidence to support young earth creationism, but that's not what I'm worried about here.

1. Mathematics vs Evolution: The probability of chance
In mathematics we accept that anything that is less likely than 1 in 10^50th power is impossible. It's not impossible, but trying to get the event you want to occur out of 10^50th power of other events is but the fever dream of a madman, less likely than winning a global lottery. The estimated probability of life forming by chance is 1 in 10^39970th power. In reality, that does not represent impossibility, but logically it does.

The unlikelihood of something is not necessarily evidence that something didn't happen, but there's one more problem with chance. What stops it from happening constantly?

If the big bang is responsible for the creation of the time, space, the laws, and matter, without intelligent interaction, out of nothing what is stopping it from happening right now? If intelligence created the universe in order for him to create it again, he needs a reason. If chance, or an undirected process created the universe, in order for it not to do it again, it needs a reason. My proposal is, if chance were responsible for creation, creation would happen constantly.

I understand if you can explain why it did happen and can't happen now, but I'm looking for scientific evidence, including real observations by scientific investigations which explain why creation, without intelligent interaction, only occurred once, and not just a religious worldview that gives a viable explanation to an irrational concept.

2. Physics vs Evolution: The Law of Entropy.
The second law of thermodynamics is a simple and infinitely observable one. This law proposes that things get worse over time "Complexity in a closed system decreases over time." By definition, evolution proposes the opposite. The idea is that we are stronger and faster and smarter than our ancestors who lived millions of years ago. The Law of Entropy would say otherwise. According to the law of entropy, our ancestors endured less disease, deformity, and even lived longer, because we are the decayed replica of something that existed years ago. In order for evolution to be true we would see new species forming rapidly, new stars forming rapidly, and the fossil record of ancestry would be shaped like darwin's tree in some way.

To my knowledge what we've actually observed is that species are going extinct all the time, but new species are not forming. We see stars blow up all the time but we never see stars form, yet there are trillions upon trillions of them out there. A Japanese archaeologist observed that the actual tree of life is upside down. There are less species today than there were before. By following that pattern we can conclude that there was a spontaneous creation of all species in the beginning, and we're just left with what survived today and few extras from micro-evolution (i.e. wolves, dogs, coyotes).

What scientific evidence is there that evolution is capable of explaining the naturalistic creation of a universe that increases complexity over time. I believe that, in order to comply with the law of entropy , the universe requires a spontaneous creation. I want to know if there is any scientific evidence that gives evolution the right to defy the Law of Entropy without intelligent interaction.

We defy the law of entropy all the time, we have repairmen, mechanics and doctors. We use intelligence to defy the law of entropy, and nature uses natural systems more complicated than any machine we've ever created to defy the law of entropy.

3. Biology vs Evolution: Genetic Homeostasis, Bio Genesis and Genetic Information
Genetic homeostasis is a scientific observation that contradicts macro-evolution. Genetic homeostasis represents the fact that are barriers to the genetic changes a species can undergo when breeding. Mutations are almost always harmful and the changes they make do not compare to the amount of changes necessary to go from a dinosaur to a bird. There is evidence that these barriers cannot be broken, because humans have tried, that new complex genetic information cannot be made from mutations to create a new species.

What scientific evidence is there that natural selection or the mechanisms of punctuated equilibrium could cause a species to break the barriers of genetic homeostasis?

DNA. Nothing more needs to be said, no respectable scientist can call this the result of an undirected process. DNA is the most complex chemical in the universe. It's so unbelievably complex it consists of a language with it's own grammar and syntax and mathematical algorithmic expressions. This is my next argument, but I don't think there is anything more to be said in opposition about it

4. Psychology and Sociology vs Evolution
Whoever came up with vestigial organs doesn't know a single thing about biology. For example: If the appendix actually was vestigial, your body would have eradicated it by the time you were 13 years old. Your body doesn't keep organs alive that don't do any work. That's why your muscles get weak when you have a broken leg and can't walk on it for weeks. If your appendix was vestigial, yes, you would still be born with it, and your children born with it, but your body would have killed it off.

If you've ever read the sad story of the little girl genie, whom no other child abuser in all history has been able to have a greater life-long psychological effect on the innocent child. Since Genie was neglected and never spoken to the major parts of her brain which register speech died off. The body said: "If you're not going to use it, why should I waste precious food keeping it alive?" Like a worker in a factory that does nothing, he's going to get fired, the body is hardcore.

Now historic evolution says that in the paleolithic/neolithic era, man developed speech because they needed better order in the societies they were creating. My question is which came first, the babies who were capable of learning the language, or the adults who were capable of teaching it? If you never learn a language, you'll be little more communicative than a dog, you might be able to decipher sounds and respond with different syllables and noises, but grammar and syntax are physically beyond your comprehension.

Is there a scientific explanation for how millions of years of evolution humans could ever develop a language that only the adults would have been capable of speaking if they themselves were taught it as a baby?

5. Population vs Evolution:
It's entirely mathematically possible for a younger earth to produce a population like we have today. However, due to the exponential nature of population growth, it is inconceivable that the population of man today would only be 7 billion after millions of years.

In just 200 years, based on consensus, the population rose from 1 billion to 7 billion. What scientific evidence is there that this trend would not have given rise to a much greater population of humanity over millions of years?

Why is it that the creationists who come up with these killer arguments from mathematics, physics and genetics never think to run them by a real mathematician, real physicist or real geneticist? I suppose there's a selection process involved: if any ever do, we don't see the arguments, since real experts will point out what utter codswallop this stuff is.

 

[lordking]

But let's see what your arguments are:

! Math, I am sorry but I have never seen a valid mathematical argument against evolution. Every single one that I have ever seen was a strawman argument that misstated how evolution occurred. With those sorts of arguments if there is an error in the premise there is no need to even do any math to show that they are wrong.

2. You got your law of entropy wrong to start out with. It says that in an isolated system the amount of entropy goes up in time. The Earth is essentially a closed system. That means energy can get in and out but very little matter does so. There are two other possibilities. There is an open system, a car engine is an example of such. Both energy and matter can enter and leave. And then there is an isolated system. Neither energy nor matter can enter and leave and that is the one where your usage of the SLoT applies.

There is no problem with Entropy and Evolution.

3. Mutations are not always harmful. There are specific examples of mutations that are on the whole beneficial. You don't seem to understand too much in the way of biology. Whether a mutation is positive or negative is very often dependent upon the environment it is found in. You can't over simplify a complex reaction and claim to win when it can be shown to be positive in some cases and negative in others.

4. You don't understand either biology or what a vestigial organ is. The appendix is vestigial. It does not do the same job it used to do. That does not mean that a new use for it cannot arise. Please. Learn some basic biology before you go making such sweeping and errant statements.

5. Flat out wrong. You made a mistake a high school student would not make. You assumed that population growth has always been steady and always been positive. It hasn't been. Yes, because of the development of civilization the human population has grown rather steadily over the last 2,000 years. But even then there were dips and rises and proves nothing. Plug the growth rate for bacteria into the same equation and you will find that there should be more bacteria than there is mass for the Earth.

Thank you for you comments, that's an interesting perspective however for the most part I've seen those arguments before and here is my rebuttal:

1. Then you didn't read my argument, ignore propbability, and explain to me why an undirected process, based on scientific evidence, has been limited to one occurance.

2. The universe is an isolated system. When I say evolution I refer to Hovind's list, yes Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is not affected by the big bang theory, however, an atheistic model of origins is.

3. Strawman, I did not claim that every change in the genetic code of an [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is harmful, I said it is almost always harmful. That is merely micro-evolution. I would like you to give me an example of a beneficial mutation that illustrates the ability of natural selection to create a new species.

4. The argument of vestigial organs according to the textbooks is that they are irrelevant. That's an interesting perspective.

5. But over the past million years it was relatively static?

What you're giving me here is an explanation. They're perfectly viable explanations, there's absolutely nothing wrong with your explanations. But where's the science? I can explain to you all day how God could've created the word and solved all these questions, but that would just be an explanation. Not science.

1st: You have to prove to me this millions of years of human evolution time frame. Is the earth really that old? What ancient record support this explanation.

2nd There needs to be evidence that these events did happen. Where is the archeology that itself takes census of the quantity of people at what given time and what sort of plagues and disasters evident in these time frames impeded upon population growth.

Otherwise you just have a nice explanation.

To the rest of you.

Grow up. It's time for you to accept that there are people in the world who think differently than you do. If you'd read my comments objectively, as a man of science should, you might be able to refute them properly.

 

[lordking]

Why is it that the creationists who come up with these killer arguments from mathematics, physics and genetics never think to run them by a real mathematician, real physicist or real geneticist? I suppose there's a selection process involved: if any ever do, we don't see the arguments, since real experts will point out what utter codswallop this stuff is.

Is that an appeal to authority a pitiful logical fallacy? Why don't you refute my arguments since it's so fundamental. I'm not here to convince you, I'm asking for future reference, here is your chance help to ensure that a crowd of people are not indoctrinated with false information during a creation/evolution debate, but I see it's more important to you to throw empty insults.

 

[lordking]

I'm sorry, but you have a major failure in your very first point. I don't know where this "1 in 10^50 is mathematically impossible" quote I keep hearing comes from, but I only ever see it on creationist sites. However, even if that quote came from a legitimate source it would be fallacious. You can perform acts with far more improbable odds by using a deck of cards. Calculating the odds after an event and then declaring it impossible due to probability is ridiculous. And where does this 10^39970 figure come from?

Before we even get done with the first point you have a second major failure. The big bang is not evolution. The two have nothing to do with each other. If someone disproved the big bang theory tomorrow, it would have no bearing on the theory of evolution.

Here's an example of a strawman kids of a biased selection of words that he found easy to refute. I defy you to quote me where I said, outside of this post, or any quote of this post that "According to all accredited mathematicians anything that is less likely than 1 in 10^50th power is absolutely positively impossible!" Please do, and then your statement will not be a strawman.

What I actually said was it's "considered" impossible. A probability that unlikely is so inconceivable, it's a rational decision to consider it impossible. I even said "In reality it is not impossible". So please, prove to me that all evidence for evolution is not a compilation of logical fallacies.

 

[dad]

5. But over the past million years it was relatively static?

They don't know, but throw up all sorts of reasons why it was. SubZ seems to insinuate that babies come "because of the development of civilization"!I wonder if some of these folks ever heard of the concept of hetrosexual?

 

[crjmurray]

Here's an example of a strawman kids of a biased selection of words that he found easy to refute. I defy you to quote me where I said, outside of this post, or any quote of this post that "According to all accredited mathematicians anything that is less likely than 1 in 10^50th power is absolutely positively impossible!" Please do, and then your statement will not be a strawman.

What I actually said was it's "considered" impossible. A probability that unlikely is so inconceivable, it's a rational decision to consider it impossible. I even said "In reality it is not impossible". So please, prove to me that all evidence for evolution is not a compilation of logical fallacies.

I didn't make a strawman of your post. Maybe you don't know what that term means but I'm certainly not guilty of what it actually means. I was simply saying that using probability to argue against an outcome after the fact is pointless. Especially with this 10^50 as a measure of "impossibility". As I said, you can come up with more improbable odds with a deck of cards. I didn't address anything past your first point because I don't see the use in doing that. When people come on here and post very long and wrong lists, there's no point in going past the first wrong issue. Just personal preference. Now if you had a point that I missed then feel free to explain it. It will help if you drop the rude tone.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you for you comments, that's an interesting perspective however for the most part I've seen those arguments before and here is my rebuttal:

1. Then you didn't read my argument, ignore propbability, and explain to me why an undirected process, based on scientific evidence, has been limited to one occurance.

What do you mean "one occurance <sic>"?

2. The universe is an isolated system. When I say evolution I refer to Hovind's list, yes Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is not affected by the big bang theory, however, an atheistic model of origins is.

Yes, the universe is an isolated system and the entropy of the universe continually increases. There is nothing in the SLoT that says that local lowering of entropy cannot happen. And you should be thankful for that. By your version of the SLoT life itself would be impossible. You started as a single cell in your mother and now you are much more complex than you were then.

3. Strawman, I did not claim that every change in the genetic code of an [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is harmful, I said it is almost always harmful. That is merely micro-evolution. I would like you to give me an example of a beneficial mutation that illustrates the ability of natural selection to create a new species.

You are correct, my mistake. But your argument was still bogus. sfs answered it fully.

4. The argument of vestigial organs according to the textbooks is that they are irrelevant. That's an interesting perspective.

Then you are reading poor textbooks. Vestigial organs are organs that do not perform their original job. Your lungs are a "vestigial organ". They were the air bladder of your mutlimillion grandparents. Very often vestigial organs evolve new uses. You were taught an over simplified version.

5. But over the past million years it was relatively static?

No.

What you're giving me here is an explanation. They're perfectly viable explanations, there's absolutely nothing wrong with your explanations. But where's the science? I can explain to you all day how God could've created the word and solved all these questions, but that would just be an explanation. Not science.

What you did was a Gish Gallop. You posted a whole bunch of nonsense and then demand a detailed explanation of why every point of yours was wrong. That is not how an honest debate is done. It always takes much longer to correct an errant statement than it takes to make it in the first place. If you want details bring up your points one at a time. And you should be supplying evidence for your claims too.

1st: You have to prove to me this millions of years of human evolution time frame. Is the earth really that old? What ancient record support this explanation.

There are countless ancient records that show the Earth is ancient. Ice caps, varves, rates of deposition, rates of erosion, rates of uplift, radiometric dating. The list goes on and on.

2nd There needs to be evidence that these events did happen. Where is the archeology that itself takes census of the quantity of people at what given time and what sort of plagues and disasters evident in these time frames impeded upon population growth.

What? No. We can see that life went up and down over the history of man. If you want to claim something the burden of proof is upon you.

Otherwise you just have a nice explanation.

Thank you.

To the rest of you.

Grow up. It's time for you to accept that there are people in the world who think differently than you do. If you'd read my comments objectively, as a man of science should, you might be able to refute them properly.

Now that was unnecessary. You were the one that came here spewing ignorant PRATT's and demanding to be taken seriously. Your approach here was rude, even if you did not see it. Your first post was rude so you received rude responses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They don't know, but throw up all sorts of reasons why it was. SubZ seems to insinuate that babies come "because of the development of civilization"!I wonder if some of these folks ever heard of the concept of hetrosexual?

What? dad, your inability to understand posts is monumental. Nowhere did any of my posts imply that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is that an appeal to authority a pitiful logical fallacy? Why don't you refute my arguments since it's so fundamental. I'm not here to convince you, I'm asking for future reference, here is your chance help to ensure that a crowd of people are not indoctrinated with false information during a creation/evolution debate, but I see it's more important to you to throw empty insults.

No, you do not understand what an appeal to authority is. When someone points out that you made an "appeal to authority fallacy" that means that you made the mistake on the order of "If I change my oil in my car I will get better mileage. I heard that from Fred and he's a doctor". That is an appeal to authority error. Fred may be a doctor and an expert on the human body but that does not mean that he knows anything about cars.

When you go to an authority that understands a subject that is a correct use of authority.

 

[KWCrazy]

I heard that from Fred and he's a doctor". That is an appeal to authority error. Fred may be a doctor and an expert on the human body but that does not mean that he knows anything about cars.

When you go to an authority that understands a subject that is a correct use of authority.

Personally, I consider the authority on the origination of life to be the only one who has ever, in fact, originated life. The opinions of those who have not are as equally invalid as Fred the doctor.
I think the weakness of this thread is that it is seeking concrete scientific proof of evolution when there is none. Neither is there scientific proof of creation. Each side has their own interpretations of the evidence and with a few exceptions neither side gives deference to the opinions of the other. In a world governed only by the laws of science the scientific arguments would have more validity. However, we do not live in such a world. We live in a world where principalities vie for the souls of man; where good and evil collide on the fabric of what we presume to be reality. It is, however, merely a backdrop for the greater challenge that we all face as human beings with eternal souls and an eternal destiny which we may not even understand that we control.

A creationist with knowledge of the Creator will not be convinced by naturalists that he world formed itself out of nothing and all life evolved from a single cell millions of years ago. Evolution believers who reject anything not physically provable will reject the notion of a Creator and thus the possibility that anything could have been created in accordance with any plan or intelligence. These are the factions. The arguments are lost because neither has credibility with the other.

 

[lordking]

I didn't make a strawman of your post. Maybe you don't know what that term means but I'm certainly not guilty of what it actually means. I was simply saying that using probability to argue against an outcome after the fact is pointless. Especially with this 10^50 as a measure of "impossibility". As I said, you can come up with more improbable odds with a deck of cards. I didn't address anything past your first point because I don't see the use in doing that. When people come on here and post very long and wrong lists, there's no point in going past the first wrong issue. Just personal preference. Now if you had a point that I missed then feel free to explain it. It will help if you drop the rude tone.

You're calling me rude while you had the audacity to tell me that the entirety of my post was not worthy of you? Please. You're still getting it wrong however, 10^50th power is not a measure of impossibility in the same way that newtons is a measure of force. I insist you read my argument before you refute it.

 

[dad]

What? dad, your inability to understand posts is monumental. Nowhere did any of my posts imply that.

Here it is

"5. Flat out wrong. You made a mistake a high school student would not make. You assumed that population growth has always been steady and always been positive. It hasn't been. Yes, because of the development of civilization the human population has grown rather steadily over the last 2,000 years. But even then there were dips and rises and proves nothing. Plug the growth rate for bacteria into the same equation and you will find that there should be more bacteria than there is mass for the Earth."


When there was a black out in New York they had a baby spike. Not because civilization developed that night!

 

[crjmurray]

You're calling me rude while you had the audacity to tell me that the entirety of my post was not worthy of you? Please. You're still getting it wrong however, 10^50th power is not a measure of impossibility in the same way that newtons is a measure of force. I insist you read my argument before you refute it.

I read it. I explained the probability issue. I explained how the big bang is not evolution. As far as your, why isn't creation happening constantly question, I don't know what you're asking. If you're asking about abiogenisis then that also is not evolution.

 

[lordking]

What do you mean "one occurance <sic>"?



Yes, the universe is an isolated system and the entropy of the universe continually increases. There is nothing in the SLoT that says that local lowering of entropy cannot happen. And you should be thankful for that. By your version of the SLoT life itself would be impossible. You started as a single cell in your mother and now you are much more complex than you were then.



You are correct, my mistake. But your argument was still bogus. sfs answered it fully.



Then you are reading poor textbooks. Vestigial organs are organs that do not perform their original job. Your lungs are a "vestigial organ". They were the air bladder of your mutlimillion grandparents. Very often vestigial organs evolve new uses. You were taught an over simplified version.



No.




What you did was a Gish Gallop. You posted a whole bunch of nonsense and then demand a detailed explanation of why every point of yours was wrong. That is not how an honest debate is done. It always takes much longer to correct an errant statement than it takes to make it in the first place. If you want details bring up your points one at a time. And you should be supplying evidence for your claims too.



There are countless ancient records that show the Earth is ancient. Ice caps, varves, rates of deposition, rates of erosion, rates of uplift, radiometric dating. The list goes on and on.



What? No. We can see that life went up and down over the history of man. If you want to claim something the burden of proof is upon you.




Thank you.



Now that was unnecessary. You were the one that came here spewing ignorant PRATT's and demanding to be taken seriously. Your approach here was rude, even if you did not see it. Your first post was rude so you received rude responses.

I see it's my fault. "You were the one that came here spewing ignorant..." I apologize for asking an honest question to better my research. Would you mind telling where in my first post, I made an effort to offend you in some way?

However, it was entirely necessary, you'd like to label me with stereotypes about what a creationist should be, but I find that offensive.

Anyway I'm not making any claims, evolution is. Evolution is not fact if there is no evidence of latter. Evolution is fact if and only if there is evidence of evolution. It doesn't matter whether or not you think creation has evidence, it has no effect on the theory of evolution. Evolution says language developed over millions of years, however evidence speaks otherwise.

Assuming I do accept the burden of proof, though I have not given you evidence for my claims. From late 1800s to the 2000s did the population not rise from 1 billion to 7 billion? Are there not approximately 7 billion in the world today?

Where exactly am I needing proof? Is there not a Law of Entropy? Is Genie not a real child? Is genetic homeostasis disproven?