Looking for Evidence for Atheistic Evolution

Fromgenesis · May 15, 2015

Zoe Brain said:

You may wish to amend the video as origins of life actually does form part of the theory of evolution.The very first book on google search revealed this : Origin and Diversification of Life (Part II) describes the history of life on earth from the origin of life to the evolution of humans, with emphasis on the major transitions in genetic organization and novel adaptations that have appeared. The diversity of life is emphasized. The chapters make extensive use of information from complete genome sequences and analysis of molecular mechanisms in development."
See http://www.cshlpress.com/default.tp...n=full&linksortby=oop_title&--eqSKUdatarq=540
So, it seems the very first hurdle must still be overcome. Even Richard Dawkins (not considered a "nobody" in the evolution debate) accepts that origins is part of the debate. So you cannot sidestep this rather considerable hurdle.

Omar · May 15, 2015

An example of mutation which is beneficial (remember, this is ultimately contingent upon context) is somatic hyper mutation of B cell antibodies. The mutation rate here is on average 1000 times greater than anywhere else, meaning that different antibodies can be produced for novel antigens.

"Beneficial" and "detrimental" are completely dependent upon the environment into which these mutations are going to be expressed. Case in point: sickle cell trait and malarial infection.

Sickle cell trait (defined as having one sickle cell allele-HbS and a normal allele-HbA) would normally be a neutral mutation; it adds no immediate benefit, but it doesn't create an immediate disadvantage either. However, with this phenotype expression, erythrocyte morphology is altered which means that in areas in which Plasmodium is endemic, the trophozoites cannot enter the erythrocytes as easily, conferring a greater resistance to malarial infection and the subsequent potentially lethal sequelae. This is an example of a "beneficial" mutation then, but as you see, it's dependent on the pressures inherent in that environment. This is natural selection: environment acting on a given expression of a set of genes. And this means that certain traits will proliferate an some will not; over time, this will cause a marked change: evolution.

Omar

paulm50 · May 15, 2015

lordking said:
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.

Your problem is you have no intention of a real debate. There are mountains of evidence the Bible is nonsense. It makes no reference to dinosaurs, to all the creatures that came long before Man. It even get's the creation of the Earth in the wrong order and misses out on the creation of the other communities, Cain visited. The Flood and the Ark are fairy stories. Based on real events. The flood was due to the ice cap melting, the Bible misses out the Ice Ages because the story tellers had no clue about them. All the animals of that time to could never of fitted onto a ship of that size.

Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, is credible. It's proof is in the food we eat, our pets and even the plants we decorate our garden with. Man can speed up natural selection, because it works. Noah's Ark included domesticated animals bred from their wild counterparts.

There's not a shred of credible scientific evidence to back up anything in the Old Testament.

Adam81 · May 15, 2015

lordking said:
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?

Scientifically, carbn dating shows we have a planet that is billions of years old. Carbon dating is explained with nucear physics - the only way to disprove carbon dating is to disprove nuclear physics, and nuclear power plants and waepons mean that can't happen.

Biblically, historians and theologians have taught for an incredibly long time that Adam and Eve, the 7 days of creation and Noah's Ark were written uring exile in Babylon. During that time, young Jews were learning only Babylonian beliefs, so the Jewish leaders decided to write down their beliefs, and these three things were written as parables, all based on these Babylonian beliefs to show them how the Jewish God is different and far superior to the Babylonian gods. This is what they were supposed to teach, and were never meant to be a literal history. Some people refuse to believe this despite the evidence, as they have more faith in their teachings and interpretations rather than faith in the word of God and God Himself, they believe in Adam & Eve more than God, and if Adam & Eve was not true then they feel God is not true.
Even the Catholic Church has taught for a long time that the world is as old as science says it is, and have taught the true meanings of these parables. If you have more faith in God rather that faith in what you were taught and faith in your current knowledge, you would be open to changing your min - I am always open to the fact that I know less than 0.001% of what there is to know about God, which means I am open to learning more.

Fromgenesis · May 15, 2015

Adam81 said:
Scientifically, carbn dating shows we have a planet that is billions of years old. Carbon dating is explained with nucear physics - the only way to disprove carbon dating is to disprove nuclear physics, and nuclear power plants and waepons mean that can't happen.

Biblically, historians and theologians have taught for an incredibly long time that Adam and Eve, the 7 days of creation and Noah's Ark were written uring exile in Babylon. During that time, young Jews were learning only Babylonian beliefs, so the Jewish leaders decided to write down their beliefs, and these three things were written as parables, all based on these Babylonian beliefs to show them how the Jewish God is different and far superior to the Babylonian gods. This is what they were supposed to teach, and were never meant to be a literal history. Some people refuse to believe this despite the evidence, as they have more faith in their teachings and interpretations rather than faith in the word of God and God Himself, they believe in Adam & Eve more than God, and if Adam & Eve was not true then they feel God is not true.
Even the Catholic Church has taught for a long time that the world is as old as science says it is, and have taught the true meanings of these parables. If you have more faith in God rather that faith in what you were taught and faith in your current knowledge, you would be open to changing your min - I am always open to the fact that I know less than 0.001% of what there is to know about God, which means I am open to learning more.

Does carbon dating rely on any assumptions that cannot be proven?
Does any agreement between Babylonian and early Christian beliefs suggest that one was a "copy" of the other or can it not also be possible that both originate from a still earlier "original"?
One would have to consider that modern findings prove rather than disprove the Bible. It was interesting to learn that both Hubble and Hawking come to conclusions that the earth is at the center of the universe!
[Redshifts] would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth[...] This hypothesis cannot be disproved" - Edwin Hubble in The Observational Approach to Cosmology

"[A]ll this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe[...] We [reject] it only on grounds of modesty" - Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time

sfs · May 15, 2015

Adam81 said:
Scientifically, carbn dating shows we have a planet that is billions of years old. Carbon dating is explained with nucear physics - the only way to disprove carbon dating is to disprove nuclear physics, and nuclear power plants and waepons mean that can't happen.

Carbon dating says nothing about the earth being billions of years old. Radiometric dating, yes, but not carbon dating.

sfs · May 15, 2015

lordking is currently arguing that farmers should have been able to produce new species if evolution is true. This is kind of a strange argument to make, since farmers have produced new species. For example, corn (maize) is not a species found in nature, but is a product of selective breeding from wild teosinte species. If you leave a field of corn alone for a few years, it does not spontaneously revert to being teosinte, which would be the case if genetic homeostasis were operating. The changes are impressive:

Maize-teosinte [Attribution or CC BY 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)], by John Doebley (http://teosinte.wisc.edu/images.html), from Wikimedia Commons

Gene2memE · May 15, 2015

Think that's impressive? Try brassica!

Wiccan_Child · May 15, 2015

lordking said:
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.

To be clear, Darwin's theory of evolution has been superseded the modern theory.

lordking said:
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.

How did you derive this statistic?

lordking said:
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.

Not if the conditions after the first Big Bang precluded any further Big Bangs. Or perhaps Big Bangs are happening all the time - just not in our universe.

lordking said:
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.

Since the Earth is heated by the Sun, it is not a closed system, and so the second law doesn't apply. Specifically, the entropy increase in the Sun easily offsets the entropy decrease on the Earth's surface.

lordking said:
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

I disagree that there is any such thing as 'genetic barriers'. What evidence do you have for this?

lordking said:
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.

By what mechanism can the body kill of unused tissue?

lordking said:
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

Except that's not true. In blind people, for instance, their visual cortex becomes rewired to process non-visual sensory information.

lordking said:
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

Once we were able to link sounds with ideas (as a trained dog does), there thereafter exists a selection pressure to have a greater capacity for retaining words, and for stringing them together into more complex commands. This leads inexorable to grammar, and thus to language.

lordking said:
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?

Quite simply, because the human population does not grow exponentially. Rather, it follows first- and second-order differentials, tapering and limiting due to territory, food, disease, and predation. In most species, the population is static; human technology has removed much of our prior limitations, so we have experienced a recent population boom.

DanMN · May 15, 2015

From a True Christian view, this debate is fruitless. Debating theory and a faith based belief won't work. And if Christians need to validate their beliefs with science all the time, you will lose faith. If some Christians believe in a biblical creation, they believe so because of their faith. That is difficult for many people to understand. I, personally used to love this debate. I've come to realize that debating this constantly takes away from what we should really be doing. When it comes down to it, whatever a person believes about creation doesn't effect his or her salvation. I'm pretty sure God understands us, he made us after all. Jesus tells us what is important. Love our God and love our neighbors as ourselves. We have a difficult enough time getting that right..... Also to the OP, you asked for people to basically shoot your info down so you would be prepped for a debate. Your responses were not effective to say the least which makes people wonder why you posted the question. Also, if you are going to quote statistics, you have to reference the trusted,peer reviewed, scientific journal, etc that this info came from. The web is a garbage can of worthless info. I didn't read all 14 pages of this thread, so accept my apology if any of this was covered in the pages I didn't read. From a bible believing Christian. God bless.

Loudmouth · May 15, 2015

Adam81 said:
Scientifically, carbn dating shows we have a planet that is billions of years old.

FYI,

Carbon dating can only be used on organic material that is 50k years old or less. Carbon dating works by measuring the amount of 14C in a sample. The half life of 14C is just a few thousand years, so after 50,000 years there is very little of the original 14C left which causes dates to be unreliable.

For dating rocks that are billions of years old, geologists use isotopes that have very long half lives measured in the hundreds of millions to billions of years such as 235U and 238U.

bhsmte · May 15, 2015

DanMN said:
From a True Christian view, this debate is fruitless. Debating theory and a faith based belief won't work. And if Christians need to validate their beliefs with science all the time, you will lose faith. If some Christians believe in a biblical creation, they believe so because of their faith. That is difficult for many people to understand. I, personally used to love this debate. I've come to realize that debating this constantly takes away from what we should really be doing. When it comes down to it, whatever a person believes about creation doesn't effect his or her salvation. I'm pretty sure God understands us, he made us after all. Jesus tells us what is important. Love our God and love our neighbors as ourselves. We have a difficult enough time getting that right..... Also to the OP, you asked for people to basically shoot your info down so you would be prepped for a debate. Your responses were not effective to say the least which makes people wonder why you posted the question. Also, if you are going to quote statistics, you have to reference the trusted,peer reviewed, scientific journal, etc that this info came from. The web is a garbage can of worthless info. I didn't read all 14 pages of this thread, so accept my apology if any of this was covered in the pages I didn't read. From a bible believing Christian. God bless.

There is no question, if a Christian believes in biblical creation, being exposed to scientific evidence that contradicts their personal beliefs, are only going to cause that person internal turmoil. They will then either have to form strong defense mechanisms to protect the belief, by denying this evidence and or change what they believe in.

DanMN · May 15, 2015

bhsmte said:
There is no question, if a Christian believes in biblical creation, being exposed to scientific evidence that contradicts their personal beliefs, are only going to cause that person internal turmoil. They will then either have to form strong defense mechanisms to protect the belief, by denying this evidence and or change what they believe in.

You are correct. I believe God can do what he sees fit and since he is omnipotent and the Creator of all, he isn't bound by scientific laws. I also have a curiosity and want to know why and how things happen. Much can be explained through science and logic, also, much can't be. For the ones we can't prove scientifically we have hypothesis and theories. For Christians, we have the bible for some. Since faith isn't logical and scientific, people of faith can appear simple minded in the eyes of the scientific community. This has always made me sad. Faith in God isn't easy and unless you have it, is difficult to tell someone about. I have come to believe that we as Christians need to show others forgiveness, peace, understanding, and love before we start debating things with the scientific community

. Or my personal favorite, quoting bible verses to an Atheist as proof of something. That one cracks me up every time.

Loudmouth · May 15, 2015

DanMN said:
You are correct. I believe God can do what he sees fit and since he is omnipotent and the Creator of all, he isn't bound by scientific laws. I also have a curiosity and want to know why and how things happen. Much can be explained through science and logic, also, much can't be. For the ones we can't prove scientifically we have hypothesis and theories.

Science never does "proof". Proof is for math and whiskey, as the saying goes.

Science only does hypotheses and theories. Science is the activity of forming and testing hypotheses. That is what it is all about.

Since faith isn't logical and scientific, people of faith can appear simple minded in the eyes of the scientific community.

I see no reason why faith must contradict reason, logic, and science. Faith is a belief held in the absence of evidence. In the form of creationism, faith is a position held in opposition to evidence. Creationism requires the belief that God's Creation is lying to them.

bhsmte · May 15, 2015

DanMN said:
You are correct. I believe God can do what he sees fit and since he is omnipotent and the Creator of all, he isn't bound by scientific laws. I also have a curiosity and want to know why and how things happen. Much can be explained through science and logic, also, much can't be. For the ones we can't prove scientifically we have hypothesis and theories. For Christians, we have the bible for some. Since faith isn't logical and scientific, people of faith can appear simple minded in the eyes of the scientific community. This has always made me sad. Faith in God isn't easy and unless you have it, is difficult to tell someone about. I have come to believe that we as Christians need to show others forgiveness, peace, understanding, and love before we start debating things with the scientific community. Or my personal favorite, quoting bible verses to an Atheist as proof of something. That one cracks me up every time.

I can't imagine the cognitive dissonance a biblical creationist must go through, as they are exposed to the boatloads of objective evidence that supports the theory of evolution. Add to this, more and more Christians are accepting the theory everyday around them and this is like throwing gas on the fire.

And this is likely why, biblical creationists have such strong defense mechanisms that we see on full display on these boards; denial, confirmation bias and selective reasoning.

dad · May 15, 2015

lordking said:
.. Would you mind telling where in my first post, I made an effort to offend you in some way?...

Did you mention creatiion or allude to it? That sets some people off somethin fierce!

lordking · May 15, 2015

Zoe Brain said:
Offering proof to a pilot about to take off that heavier-than-air flight is theoretically impossible isn't helpful. Offering proofs based on thermodynamics or whatever that evolution can't exist isn't helpful to people who use it.

There's some science, now that's what I like to see.

Loudmouth · May 15, 2015

lordking said:
There's some science, now that's what I like to see.

Then why was your opening post devoid of science? For example:

"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. "

Where is there any science backing those claims?

Let's take the "anything that is less likely than 1 in 10^50th power is impossible" claim. According to this claim, we shouldn't even be able to shuffle a deck of cards. It should be impossible. Why? After you shuffle a deck of cards, the probability of getting that exact order of cards is 52!, or 8 in 10^67th.

Moreover, you showed us zero science as to the estimated chances of abiogenesis, as if that really applies to evolution anyway.

Perhaps you can understand why we are a bit skeptical about your sudden love of science.

lordking · May 15, 2015

USincognito said:
Nice try, but not every fossil is millions of years old. What some kinds of fossils are evidence of is a population of beings, living at a particular time, one of which died and it's bones were permineralized. From the context of the deposition of the fossil and an analysis of it's morphology, we can determine a lot about it and what extant lineages it is related to.

I guess that "objective scientist" would not be a paleontologist or geologist? Not all fossils are buried deeply nor rapidly. Beings that die in anaerobic environments can have sediment cover them slowly because their bodies aren't subject to scavenging or rot from bacteria, mold, etc.

The Flood was falsified 200 years ago. The Flood doesn't explain faunal succession, trace fossils like tracks, burrows, root systems, footprints and coproiites. And geology is the least problematic issue the Flood has to deal with.

I hope you don't use these childish, Hovinesque appeals to ignorance during your formal debate.

I don't know if you'll take this as a compliment or not but you guys are the only sure fire way to ensure that my arguments are absolutely indisputable because I've noticed you like to attempt to destroy an argument over the littlest of disparities.

When you say the flood "can't explain" or was "falsified" you're really not looking credible here. When it comes to evolution you can explain away anything with time. You try to say evolution happened over 6000 you've got a serious problem, once you add all those billions of years you can explain away any abstract concept and add as much science as you want to back it up.

What you don't understand about the bible first is that Adam lived 930 years, and Noah lived a couple hundred himself, and the science behind that has a lot to do with population, and the fossil record. The bible has scientific explanations for these things beyond the "god of gaps". If you want an explanation you could to Kent about the Hovind Theory, if you want some science you might have to search a little harder. I completely understand how difficult it is to find some science. It's easy to get an explanation, to say there's no explanation is a complete ignorance of what science is. There are billion scientifically viable, supported by the scientific community, explanations for how life emerged. But there's no scientific evidence.

sfs said:
Good, because the 2nd Law as stated is the only 2nd Law we've got.

Well, sure. If the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics were extended to require a complex system to be in place to utilize energy, then the spontaneous origin of life would be problematic. Similarly, if the Second Law of Thermodynamics were a pig, we could all make a nice ham sandwich. Regrettably, neither is true. The idea that reduction in entropy or the spontaneous increase in order requires a complex system to be already in place is a figment of your (or somebody's) imagination. There's no such principle in physics or chemistry. If you want to propose a new law of nature, you'll have to provide some evidence that it's true.

Your arguments were refuted, and in fact you've changed some of them in response. Did you not notice that you were doing so? You've dropped the probability argument. Your argument about entropy now focuses only on the origin of the universe and the origin of life, not on how life has changed -- in other words, your argument against evolution no longer seems to apply to evolution. And I showed you a paper that demonstrated that genetic homeostasis can be shifted to a new equilibrium by sustained selection pressure. The idea that genetic homeostasis was some kind of barrier between species was again something you made up; it was never about the formation of new species, but about the tendency of a population to return to its previous state. That tendency can be overcome, as I showed you.

If the second law of thermodynamics were a pig? You almost had something here except you missed the part were I said "fact". It is not a fact that entropy increases over time in an isolated system unless "it were a pig". Can you prove it wrong? Prove that energy can reduce entropy if there is nothing in place to utilize it.

As you think, for 300 million years no scientist ever claimed that there was a "Law of Gravity" that governed the natural world, but everybody was fully aware of the fact that if you drop something it falls. It wasn't until Newton, that a scientist ever claimed the laws of motion and force. Whether or not that fact has a scientist's name on it doesn't make it false.

Barrier was more of a metaphorical term. I was not thinking some force field straight out of Star Wars blocking the DNA from mutating too much. I completely agree a species can change into another species, but we have two different definitions of species. I understand the taxonomy systems and I think it's a wonderful thing. I could get into that later but it's not relevant now.

My purpose of coming here was to change my arguments, not to convince you of anything. You didn't really prove my statement about probability wrong it just wasn't a strong enough argument. Yes we might be able to perform more impossible odds with a deck a cards, but imagine trying to get those impossible odds to work in your favor. You're not going to bet your wife and kids on one card game by the slight chance that you'll get all 4 of the aces and king 5 times in a row. You're not going to look at that scenario and think, "well since there's a chance it's not like it's impossible or anything, so I might as well bet it all". That's why I used the hyperbole: the fever dream of a madman. I've seen that argument before about chance: well I can get more impossible odds by pressing a bunch of keys on the keyboard.

The difference is, is every possible outcome in that instance was what you were looking for before you pressed the keys. Before he pressed the keys it was in his mind: whatever combination I'll get I'll calculate that out of all the possible combinations and show that it still happened. Let's say you want to perform that experiment to see how likely it is for life to form. Let's say you have no idea where the keys are or what function key does what(i.e. shift, caps lock), so you're blindfolded, blindly pressing keys and you want to get the combination: ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ. You have to try and get that sequence all in capital letters out of 27 total presses hoping that the first button you pressed was the caps lock while not having any punctuation in between or numbers by accident. My Keyboard has 105 keys total; you can calculate those odds if you want and if you think the odds are more in your favor than 1 in 10^39970 I'd say give it a try.

It'D be different if he said "I performed this experiment" that I've developed, "and after 30 minutes I managed to get ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ perfectly." The chance of something happening doesn't prove that it will or won't happen, that's why I removed that argument.

I personally don't agree with that number 1 in 10^39970 I think it's way less likely than that, but some guy calculated it and publicized that number. Personally, I would say it's 1/0.

Looking for Evidence for Atheistic Evolution

Newbie

Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Newbie

Contributor

Newbie

Contributor

Newbie

Newbie

Contributor

Newbie

Undefeated!

Newbie

Contributor

Newbie

Similar threads