Destroying Evolution in less than 5 minutes

[BCP1928]

We can't understand ourselves, and then 'evolution' with no intelligence at all, did better than smart people and made us, i call lies, we can't even build something remotely close to ourselves after thousands of year of study, if evolution were true you would think people would have created a simulation with great results, but no evolution process has no business in creating every creature like they claim.

It's information processing capacity that's required, not intelligence. The interlocking stochastic processes which make up the biosphere have an unsurpassed capacity. Give us time--look what AI can do, with no intelligence at all. It can already produce novel electrical circuits and machinery parts.

 

[NBB]

It's information processing capacity that's required, not intelligence. The interlocking stochastic processes which make up the biosphere have an unsurpassed capacity. Give us time--look what AI can do, with no intelligence at all. It can already produce novel electrical circuits and machinery parts.

Sorry even if i was Stephen Hawking level of smart and knowledgeable, i would still call lies, because one single reason, God has saved my life and i can have his tangible presence, that alone destroys evolution for me.

 

[River Jordan]

Let’s break down Harris’s simplified math:
1. He assumes 3 billion base pairs in the human genome.
2. He uses a conservative 1% difference between humans and apes (which equals 30 million base pair changes).
3. He generously assumes a 20-year generation span and 10 million years since divergence (this gives 500,000 generations).
4. He assumes one beneficial mutation fixed per generation, which is extremely generous. Most estimates suggest one beneficial mutation fixed every few hundred generations, with the vast majority being neutral or deleterious.

So what’s the problem?

Why are you assuming all of those base pair changes could only occur one at a time and had to have been beneficial?.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

We can't understand ourselves, and then 'evolution' with no intelligence at all, did better than smart people and made us, i call lies, we can't even build something remotely close to ourselves after thousands of year of study, if evolution were true you would think people would have created a simulation with great results, but no evolution process has no business in creating every creature like they claim.

Why would we need to do any of those things to show that evolution is factual?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sorry even if i was Stephen Hawking level of smart and knowledgeable, i would still call lies, because one single reason, God has saved my life and i can have his tangible presence, that alone destroys evolution for me.

And it's good for you that God saved your life.

But the evidence that He has provided through His creation shows natural life evolves as per the information shown through the theory of evolution.

 

[Shemjaza]

Sorry even if i was Stephen Hawking level of smart and knowledgeable, i would still call lies, because one single reason, God has saved my life and i can have his tangible presence, that alone destroys evolution for me.

Remember you don't have to be an atheist to accept evolution... there are Christian scientists in the very thread who accept evolution.

 

[sjastro]

I watched far enough to see who made the video. I can say a nice thing about Eric Hovind -- "He is not his father."

Then I dipped in for a few seconds and in that brief time the speaker (not Hovind) managed to claim that genetic difference between creationists and chimps was now 15% not 1%. This is a lie.

It was quick. I took more time to ID a critical flaw than to type this sentence.

Eric might not have a criminal record like his father but some quotes attributed to him indicate certain behavioural genes (a hallmark of evolution ) has been passed from father to son.

Here are his efforts as a poet expressing anti-immigration which found its way on the white supremacy site Stormfront.

“We think America darn good place!
Too darn good for the white man race.
If they no like us, they can scram…
Got lots of room in Pakistan…”

His public tweet of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre seems to attribute the blame on the school the shooter went to for the following reason.

"Are you happy now that the shooter grew up in a school without God?"

 

[1Tonne]

And that's just completely wrong. No biologist thinks there are 30 million functional mutations distinguishing humans and chimps -- even 500,000 is far too high. The vast majority of genetic differences between the two species have no functional effect, just as the vast majority of the ~3 million genetic differences between two copies of the human genome have no effect.

If that's the argument, it's a very bad argument.

The 30 million figure refers to estimated genetic differences, not necessarily all functional. But the real question is: how many of those differences had to be functional to account for the profound anatomical, cognitive, and behavioural differences between humans and chimps? Even if it's just a few thousand, that still presents a serious challenge for the time and mechanisms available, given the limits of mutation and selection.

This is indeed a valid question with population genetics, one that I suspect the video does not actually engage with meaningfully. Haldane's simple model was clearly wrong in important respects. For a very recent (and quite technical) update on the subject, you could look here: https://academic.oup.com/genetics/article/229/4/iyaf011/7979206. The short answer is that for some species in some rapidly changing environments, the kind of speed limit on selection that Haldane suggested might indeed cause problems, but in general the limits are likely to be much higher than Haldane's model implied and not a significant limit on the rate of adaptation.

You cited a 2024 Genetics paper suggesting that Haldane’s Dilemma isn’t a major constraint in most species. But even that paper admits the cost of selection can be significant, especially in slowly reproducing organisms like humans. While sex and recombination help, there are still real biological limits. Dismissing these concerns doesn’t make them go away, it just avoids the hard questions about whether unguided processes are enough to explain the changes we see.

What are the odds of you being you?

Well, picking a number in the middle of a range, the number of sperm that could have fertilized your mom's egg: about 100,000,000.

Picking a number in a typical child bearing range, the number of eggs that your mom could have been fertilized is around 250,000.

Thus the odds of you being you is about 1 in 25 trillion.

BUT WAIT, what about (sticking with either paternal or maternal lines) the odds of your dad being him? 1 in 25 trillion.

So the odds of you being you are now one in 625 trillion trillion.

Let's go back to one's great grandfather: one in 4x10^53.

So in just 6 generations (on just one side of the family, 2 more generations than I've calculated), there are more combinations than there ways to deal a standard deck of cards 8x10^67.

AND that's only in a straight line. If we count the other side of the family at EACH generation, I'm not sure of the math -- square it??, that's about 16x10^106.

So clearly, none of us exists.

That kind of reasoning confuses improbability with impossibility. Yes, any one person’s existence is incredibly unlikely, after the fact, but so is any specific arrangement of shuffled cards. The fact that something is unlikely doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen or didn’t. It just happened once, not by chance, but within the constraints and guidance of a larger purpose. Improbability doesn’t disprove design; it points to it.

Why would we need to do any of those things to show that evolution is factual?

If intelligent humans can’t produce life from non-life or build a human from scratch, that highlights just how incredibly complex life is. If even intelligence struggles with this, how much more unlikely is it that blind, unguided processes, without any mind or purpose, could do it by chance?
Randomness has no intelligence, yet we’re told it produced birds, humans, dogs, fish, and everything else.
But you do have intelligence. So, if unguided chance can supposedly create a leaf, go ahead, make a leaf from raw, non-living matter. Start there.

But the evidence that He has provided through His creation shows natural life evolves as per the information shown through the theory of evolution.

Remember you don't have to be an atheist to accept evolution... there are Christian scientists in the very thread who accept evolution.

From your world perspective. Not from the bibles perspective.
If evolution is correct, then the foundation of the bible is a lie. Death was in the world before Adam sinned.
Also, Jesus would not have been telling the truth when He said that He made them male and female. So, He did not make sludge that evolved.
By giving evolution the credit, we take the Glory away from God and give it to the creatures of the earth. We say it was the creature that made itself into what it is today.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honour Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and they exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible mankind, of birds, four-footed animals, and crawling creatures."

Many people profess to believe but in the end, they do not even trust the very foundation of God's word. Genisis. They say the creation account cannot be trusted and that it was simply poetic. So, they suppress the truth of what is written in the Bible with a lie. In God's creation, there is evidence that God made everything, and God has made this known to all men. When you give creation the glory instead of God, it is like you are worshipping the creation instead of the creator. You profess to know God, but you are not giving honour and thanks to Him. Instead, in your own wisdom, professing to be wise, you give honour and thanks to the birds, four-footed animals and crawling creatures because they evolved. That is really wrong. The first commandment is that you shall have no other Gods before Him. The second is that you shall not make any idols. If you do make an idol, you will then give it glory. And this is what biologists do with evolution. They give glory to the creation instead of the creator. They say it was the creation that got us where we are today; we all evolved. So, in their own wisdom, they elevate evolution over God.

It's information processing capacity that's required, not intelligence. The interlocking stochastic processes which make up the biosphere have an unsurpassed capacity. Give us time--look what AI can do, with no intelligence at all. It can already produce novel electrical circuits and machinery parts.

If mindless processes truly have “unsurpassed capacity,” then why haven’t we seen life arise from non-life in any experiment? AI may mimic design, but it's built by intelligent humans using pre-coded information. You still need intelligence to program the “mindless” tools.

Why are you assuming all of those base pair changes could only occur one at a time and had to have been beneficial?

The concern isn’t that all changes are one-at-a-time or all beneficial, it’s that beneficial mutations must become fixed in the population, which takes time and reproductive cost. Haldane’s dilemma highlights limits on how fast meaningful genetic change can accumulate, especially in species with long generation times. Even if some changes are neutral or slightly deleterious, the question remains: can enough coordinated, functional changes fix within realistic evolutionary timeframes?
NOTE: I kindly ask that you not report this comment or any of my other comments, as happened last time. Disagreement is part of healthy dialogue, and reporting differing views can come across as an attempt to shut down open discussion. I'm engaging in good faith and hope we can continue the conversation respectfully.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Eric might not have a criminal record like his father but some quotes attributed to him indicate certain behavioural genes (a hallmark of evolution ) has been passed from father to son.

Here are his efforts as a poet expressing anti-immigration which found its way on the white supremacy site Stormfront.


His public tweet of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre seems to attribute the blame on the school the shooter went to for the following reason.

Sadly, this would probably not earn a block from me on CF.

 

[Hans Blaster]

From your world perspective. Not from the bibles perspective.
If evolution is correct, then the foundation of the bible is a lie. Death was in the world before Adam sinned.
Also, Jesus would not have been telling the truth when He said that He made them male and female. So, He did not make sludge that evolved.
By giving evolution the credit, we take the Glory away from God and give it to the creatures of the earth. We say it was the creature that made itself into what it is today.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honour Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and they exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible mankind, of birds, four-footed animals, and crawling creatures."

Many people profess to believe but in the end, they do not even trust the very foundation of God's word. Genisis. They say the creation account cannot be trusted and that it was simply poetic. So, they suppress the truth of what is written in the Bible with a lie. In God's creation, there is evidence that God made everything, and God has made this known to all men. When you give creation the glory instead of God, it is like you are worshipping the creation instead of the creator. You profess to know God, but you are not giving honour and thanks to Him. Instead, in your own wisdom, professing to be wise, you give honour and thanks to the birds, four-footed animals and crawling creatures because they evolved. That is really wrong. The first commandment is that you shall have no other Gods before Him. The second is that you shall not make any idols. If you do make an idol, you will then give it glory. And this is what biologists do with evolution. They give glory to the creation instead of the creator. They say it was the creation that got us where we are today; we all evolved. So, in their own wisdom, they elevate evolution over God.

Mr. Tonne: you can think evolution is against your god all you want, but it isn't on topic here. It might be acceptable elsewhere on CF, but only in places I do not go. Though, if your reason for rejecting evolution is for religious regions, don't think for a second that your objection is scientific.

NOTE: I kindly ask that you not report this comment or any of my other comments, as happened last time. Disagreement is part of healthy dialogue, and reporting differing views can come across as an attempt to shut down open discussion. I'm engaging in good faith and hope we can continue the conversation respectfully.

You invite such a report, though I will not do it. @Shemjaza gave a friendly reminder *another* poster that there are plenty of scientists who are Christians and have no problems with evolution. Not only do I know many scientists who are Christians, but I went through my whole Christian life without becoming aware that *any* Christian I knew was a creationist.

 

[Bradskii]

Lucy is generally dated to have lived about 3.2 million years ago. This is based on the volcanic layers in Ethiopia’s Afar region, where her remains were found, using radiometric dating techniques like argon-argon dating.
So yes, the mainstream scientific estimate is that she lived roughly 3.2 million years ago, though I think it’s also fair to say that interpretations of the fossil record and the conclusions drawn from it can vary depending on one's assumptions or worldview.

I didn't ask what the mainstream scientific estimate is. I already know that. I asked you what you thought about when she lived. Which is..?

 

[AV1611VET]

Looks to me like math can take a hike.

 

[Shemjaza]

From your world perspective. Not from the bibles perspective.
If evolution is correct, then the foundation of the bible is a lie. Death was in the world before Adam sinned.
Also, Jesus would not have been telling the truth when He said that He made them male and female. So, He did not make sludge that evolved.
By giving evolution the credit, we take the Glory away from God and give it to the creatures of the earth. We say it was the creature that made itself into what it is today.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honour Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and they exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible mankind, of birds, four-footed animals, and crawling creatures."

Many people profess to believe but in the end, they do not even trust the very foundation of God's word. Genisis. They say the creation account cannot be trusted and that it was simply poetic. So, they suppress the truth of what is written in the Bible with a lie. In God's creation, there is evidence that God made everything, and God has made this known to all men. When you give creation the glory instead of God, it is like you are worshipping the creation instead of the creator. You profess to know God, but you are not giving honour and thanks to Him. Instead, in your own wisdom, professing to be wise, you give honour and thanks to the birds, four-footed animals and crawling creatures because they evolved. That is really wrong. The first commandment is that you shall have no other Gods before Him. The second is that you shall not make any idols. If you do make an idol, you will then give it glory. And this is what biologists do with evolution. They give glory to the creation instead of the creator. They say it was the creation that got us where we are today; we all evolved. So, in their own wisdom, they elevate evolution over God.

Your interpretation is not universal.

The exact logic of placing your interpretation of the language in a specific literal manner is used by Flat Earth Creationists on this very forum.

Variation in Biblical interpretation has been so significant to people's faith as to merit execution for heresy or apostasy, so I'm dubious of your personal claim to unimpeachable specifics.

 

[BCP1928]

Sorry even if i was Stephen Hawking level of smart and knowledgeable, i would still call lies, because one single reason, God has saved my life and i can have his tangible presence, that alone destroys evolution for me.

Finding salvation in Christ has nothing to do with whether you accept the theory of evolution or not.

 

[BCP1928]

If mindless processes truly have “unsurpassed capacity,” then why haven’t we seen life arise from non-life in any experiment? AI may mimic design, but it's built by intelligent humans using pre-coded information. You still need intelligence to program the “mindless” tools.

Just as you would if you set up an abiogenesis experiment in a lab, so what? The problem here seems to be an inadequate understanding of the metaphysics of causality, in which a completely naturalistic scientific explanation of a material phenomenon seems to you to rule out simultaneous divine causality and so the theory of evolution seems to rule out divine authorship of life and the biosphere. Thomas Aquinas has a good deal to say a long those lines,as well as Aristotle well before him. I think much of this was lost in the Reformation, which is why Traditional Christians have much less trouble with the theory of evolution than Protestants

 

[1Tonne]

You invite such a report, though I will not do it. @Shemjaza gave a friendly reminder *another* poster that there are plenty of scientists who are Christians and have no problems with evolution. Not only do I know many scientists who are Christians, but I went through my whole Christian life without becoming aware that *any* Christian I knew was a creationist.

There are many scientists who are Christians and accept evolution. But it's also true that there are highly qualified scientists who are Christians and reject evolution, holding instead to a six-day creation. The difference isn't always about the data itself, but the worldview through which that data is interpreted.
Both sides, evolutionary and creationist, start with different assumptions. Evolutionary scientists often interpret evidence through a naturalistic lens, while creationist scientists interpret it through a biblical framework. So, the debate isn't just about actual science; it's about the foundational worldview each person brings to the evidence.

our interpretation is not universal.

The exact logic of placing your interpretation of the language in a specific literal manner is used by Flat Earth Creationists on this very forum.

Variation in Biblical interpretation has been so significant to people's faith as to merit execution for heresy or apostasy, so I'm dubious of your personal claim to unimpeachable specifics.

You're right that interpretation has varied throughout history, sometimes with serious consequences. But differing interpretations don't mean all interpretations are equally valid. The goal is to interpret Scripture faithfully and consistently, using context, genre, and the original languages. It’s not about claiming personal authority, but about seeking truth with humility.

Finding salvation in Christ has nothing to do with whether you accept the theory of evolution or not.

But it is about whether you believe the word of God or not.

Just as you would if you set up an abiogenesis experiment in a lab, so what? The problem here seems to be an inadequate understanding of the metaphysics of causality, in which a completely naturalistic scientific explanation of a material phenomenon seems to you to rule out simultaneous divine causality and so the theory of evolution seems to rule out divine authorship of life and the biosphere. Thomas Aquinas has a good deal to say a long those lines,as well as Aristotle well before him. I think much of this was lost in the Reformation, which is why Traditional Christians have much less trouble with the theory of evolution than Protestants

I’m not denying divine sovereignty over natural processes. But if life requires intelligent input even in the lab, it challenges the idea that unguided, mindless processes can do the same unaided. The issue isn’t about ruling out divine causality, it’s about whether the evidence supports that life can arise without it.

 

[NBB]

And it's good for you that God saved your life.

But the evidence that He has provided through His creation shows natural life evolves as per the information shown through the theory of evolution.

Tell that to evolutionist, they would say evolution doesn't need God, is a process that does its thing alone and no need no God.

 

[Larniavc]

we can't even build something remotely close to ourselves after thousands of year of study,

What does that have to do with ToE? It’s just an argument from incredulity.

 

[Larniavc]

God has saved my life and i can have his tangible presence, that alone destroys evolution for me.

Sir, this is a science subfora.

 

[Larniavc]

which is why Traditional Christians have much less trouble with the theory of evolution than Protestants

Anyone know why?