More on why I reject evolution

Aussie Pete said:

Since the subject of evolution and my response to it generates so many responses to my posts, I find it hard to keep track and even harder to be bothered covering the same old ground. So for those who are interested, I post an article of 75 points that cover most of my objections to evolution. I did not write it. The fact that David R Pogge (aka Do-While Jones) is not a biologist is entirely irrelevant. Evolution is not rocket surgery. The concept is simple enough. What is incredibly complex is the mental gymnastics required to believe in evolution.

So, you can find the link to the article here: Seventy-five Theses

If the link does not work, I've uploaded a .pdf copy as well.

Click to expand...

I am really liking this link of yours.....

It starts out like this
"

1. Initially, the Earth was a lifeless planet.
2. There is life on Earth now.
3. At some time in the past, life either originated on Earth, or came to Earth from outer space.
4. Regardless of where or when life originated, it had to originate sometime, somewhere, somehow.
5. Life either originated by purely natural processes, or else some supernatural element must have been involved.

"

I have a thread that starts like that too

Dec 29, 2020 #1

I think you will enjoy "page 1" of it.

So an admitted laymen decides that evolution isn’t true and gives spurious reasons for believing that . Big whoop! If you actually want to refute evolution , you need to look at every jot and tittle , every iota of evidence and demonstrate that it supports another theory better . Complaining about or simply disliking evolution is not refuting it either

BobRyan said:

I am really liking this link of yours.....

It starts out like this
"

1. Initially, the Earth was a lifeless planet.
2. There is life on Earth now.
3. At some time in the past, life either originated on Earth, or came to Earth from outer space.
4. Regardless of where or when life originated, it had to originate sometime, somewhere, somehow.
5. Life either originated by purely natural processes, or else some supernatural element must have been involved.

"

Click to expand...

not seeing anything to do with evolution here

Aussie Pete said:

Since the subject of evolution and my response to it generates so many responses to my posts, I find it hard to keep track and even harder to be bothered covering the same old ground. So for those who are interested, I post an article of 75 points that cover most of my objections to evolution. I did not write it. The fact that David R Pogge (aka Do-While Jones) is not a biologist is entirely irrelevant. Evolution is not rocket surgery. The concept is simple enough. What is incredibly complex is the mental gymnastics required to believe in evolution.

Click to expand...

the fact he is not a biologist is relevant as it becomes obvious from reading his 75 points that he does not have even a basic understanding of biology or any of the other sciences he makes pronouncements on like cosmology, physics and geology.

Aussie Pete said:

He is an intelligent human being. There is nothing mystical about the theory of evolution. Or any of the related subjects.

Click to expand...

no there isn't anything mystical. But you still need a basic understanding of things like biology

I recently read an article about the origin of life. The origins of life on Earth

Click to expand...

a speculative article on the possibility of extraterrestrial life for generalized reading. it never claims to be anything but that. compared to yoru linked "Severnty-five Theses" which broadly claims "the theory of evolution is not consistent with physical evidence and is no longer a respectable theory describing the origin and diversity of life." claims it never substantiates and again shows the author's lack of basic knowledge of science in that the theory fo evolution is not concerned with the origin of life.

They obviously know nothing about biology either. All they can say is that life evolved. There is no explanation as to the mechanism.

Click to expand...

which wasn't part of the article's stated purpose.

There are just sweeping generalisations that are typical of evolutionists. For example:

"Yet without them we may not be here at all. Prokaryotes were the earliest life forms, simple creatures that fed on carbon compounds that were accumulating in Earth’s early oceans.

Click to expand...

how is this information inaccurate?

Slowly, other organisms evolved that used the Sun’s energy, along with compounds such as sulfides, to generate their own energy. Cyanobacteria then went a step further: they started to utilise water during photosynthesis, releasing oxygen as a by-product. Over time, enough oxygen accumulated in Earth’s atmosphere to allow for the evolution of oxygen-metabolising organisms."

It is a series of statements with no evidence to back them up. Life has never been formed in a lab under ideal conditions.

Click to expand...

Ideal to who? What qualifies such conditions as ideal?

Questions aside you are incorrect in 2019 Matthew Powner and Saidul Islam managed to develop conditions where peptides spontaneously form base inorganic chemicals. these peptides bond together to form amino acids, the most fundamental form of life. their findings were published in Nature Peptide ligation by chemoselective aminonitrile coupling in water

How can it form in the hostile environment that supposedly existed at the time?

Click to expand...

what is your criteria for hostile? Hostile to us? most of the planet has an environment hostile to us

What imparts life to simple chemicals just floating around water? What caused those chemicals to organise into a complex structure? Even the simplest cell is remarkably complex.

Click to expand...

not really.

What made the cells divide to reproduce? How does a hyper simple creature like a Prokaryote recognise what food is? Nothing "just happens". Yet that is the basis for evolutionary theory.

Click to expand...

and here you show a lack of basic knowledge of biology and of the theory of evolution

Ooooo cool !!!!Do you have a link? Id like to read ( at least ) the abstract !
How the heck did I miss this!!!!!!

Aussie Pete said:

It is a series of statements with no evidence to back them up. Life has never been formed in a lab under ideal conditions. How can it form in the hostile environment that supposedly existed at the time? What imparts life to simple chemicals just floating around water? What caused those chemicals to organise into a complex structure? Even the simplest cell is remarkably complex. What made the cells divide to reproduce? How does a hyper simple creature like a Prokaryote recognise what food is? Nothing "just happens". Yet that is the basis for evolutionary theory.

Click to expand...

As a Christian I believe that God created heaven and earth and all things visible and invisible.

Beside this, I don't think the Bible tells us how, and I'm open to the scientific evidence that clearly supports evolution.

We're not going to discuss evolution here, you've apparently done this already in a different thread. The only question is why do you think evolution contradicts the Bible?

The second question is not for you: Does anyone here believe in non-theistic evolution? If so, how would you reconcile this with the Bible?

Aussie Pete said:

Evolution falls at the very first hurdle. Sorry, from there the race is over.

Click to expand...

facts aren't a race.

dismissing facts and evidence you don't like isn't a very honest way of dealing with posts.

Putting a few chemicals in a lab over a period of 50 years to form amino acids is NOT producing life.

Click to expand...

you keep falsely claiming that it doesn't happen but it does happen.


Amino acids are organic and they are formed from inorganic material. That is life. Deal with it

Industry has been doing that without all the hoo ha that OOL researchers get up to. Amino acids are NOT alive. Humans don't even produce the amino acids that are essential to our own existence.

Click to expand...

Amino acids are organic and aspartic acid, beta alanine, and glutamic acid are just some of the amino acids that humans produce...which is basic biology. Again you should educate yourself on the fundamentals of science before you try making grand claims about it.

Brightmoon said:

Ooooo cool !!!!Do you have a link? Id like to read ( at least ) the abstract ! View attachment 293099
How the heck did I miss this!!!!!!

Click to expand...

its really new research and very exciting

Pierre Canavelli, Saidul Islam, Matthew W Powner. Peptide ligation by chemoselective aminonitrile coupling in water. Nature. 2019 Jul

Abstract:
Amide bond formation is one of the most important reactions in both chemistry and biology1-4, but there is currently no chemical method of achieving α-peptide ligation in water that tolerates all of the 20 proteinogenic amino acids at the peptide ligation site. The universal genetic code establishes that the biological role of peptides predates life's last universal common ancestor and that peptides played an essential part in the origins of life5-9. The essential role of sulfur in the citric acid cycle, non-ribosomal peptide synthesis and polyketide biosynthesis point towards thioester-dependent peptide ligations preceding RNA-dependent protein synthesis during the evolution of life5,9-13. However, a robust mechanism for aminoacyl thioester formation has not been demonstrated13. Here we report a chemoselective, high-yielding α-aminonitrile ligation that exploits only prebiotically plausible molecules-hydrogen sulfide, thioacetate12,14 and ferricyanide12,14-17 or cyanoacetylene8,14-to yield α-peptides in water. The ligation is extremely selective for α-aminonitrile coupling and tolerates all of the 20 proteinogenic amino acid residues. Two essential features enable peptide ligation in water: the reactivity and pKaH of α-aminonitriles makes them compatible with ligation at neutral pH and N-acylation stabilizes the peptide product and activates the peptide precursor to (biomimetic) N-to-C peptide ligation. Our model unites prebiotic aminonitrile synthesis and biological α-peptides, suggesting that short N-acyl peptide nitriles were plausible substrates during early evolution.

Wow ! That was a big issue at one time. Exciting is an understatement

Andrewn said:

The only question is why do you think evolution contradicts the Bible?

Click to expand...

Creation: No death before sin. Death came in as the enemy due to Adam's sin.

Evolution: Death occurred from the beginning and is a normal and natural part of life.

This is what that looks like in real life. Coffee Without death, your fingers and toes would be one solid club ( syndactyly)

Brightmoon said:

This is what that looks like in real life. CoffeeView attachment 293275 View attachment 293276 View attachment 293277 Without death, your fingers and toes would be one solid club ( syndactyly)

Click to expand...

Creation is perfection to corruption. We expect to see well formed working models get mistakes and become more corrupted overtime. Those pictures are a good example of corruption.

And as I have time and time again, biblical death is when something with the breath of life and soul dies and only that. It was called nephesh and neither cells, fungi, bacteria or plants have or had nephesh.
I don't know the word they used for this kind of 'death' but it wasn't the same word, it wasn't called death. This is more to do with the limitations of the English language more than anything else. We use the same word to cover all forms of 'ceasing to exist' They did not.

coffee4u said:

Creation: No death before sin. Death came in as the enemy due to Adam's sin. Evolution: Death occurred from the beginning and is a normal and natural part of life.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your reply. In response, I'll start by reposting my message from another thread. I really want to understand from a believer in young earth creationism, why they object to the theory of evolution.

1) About interpreting the Bible, St Augustine ruled, the interpreter must respect the integrity of science or he would bring scripture into disrepute.

2) Science clearly shows that plants, animals, and even humanoids died millions and hundreds of thousands of years ago.

3) St Paul wrote that death came only after the Fall, "But the gift is not like the trespass. For if by the one man’s trespass the many died, how much more have the grace of God and the gift which comes through the grace of the one man Jesus Christ overflowed to the many." (Rom 5:15)

4) But the death St Paul and other biblical writers talk about is not physical death.

5) The following verses confirm that spiritual death is what is in view:

Wis 2:23 For God formed us to be imperishable;
the image of his own nature he made us.
24 But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world,
and they who are allied with him experience it.
3:1 The souls of the righteous are in the hand of God,
and no torment shall touch them.
2 They seemed, in the view of the foolish, to be dead;
and their passing away was thought an affliction
3 and their going forth from us, utter destruction.
But they are in peace.
4 For if to others, indeed, they seem punished,
yet is their hope full of immortality;

coffee4u said:

Creation is perfection to corruption. We expect to see well formed working models get mistakes and become more corrupted overtime. Those pictures are a good example of corruption.

And as I have time and time again, biblical death is when something with the breath of life and soul dies and only that. It was called nephesh and neither cells, fungi, bacteria or plants have or had nephesh.
I don't know the word they used for this kind of 'death' but it wasn't the same word, it wasn't called death. This is more to do with the limitations of the English language more than anything else. We use the same word to cover all forms of 'ceasing to exist' They did not.

Click to expand...

. These pictures are what your hands and feet would look like if the cells between your digits didn’t die ! Reality doesn’t match creationist ideas very well

Andrewn said:

Thank you for your reply. In response, I'll start by reposting my message from another thread. I really want to understand from a believer in young earth creationism, why they object to the theory of evolution.

1) About interpreting the Bible, St Augustine ruled, the interpreter must respect the integrity of science or he would bring scripture into disrepute.

Click to expand...

And I should listen and follow St Augustine why?
Was St Augustine God or a man?
I say he was a man, a failible human being. He may have been very sincere and very Godly, but he is still only a man.

Psalm 62:5
My soul, wait in silence for God only,
For my hope is from Him.

2) Science clearly shows that plants, animals, and even humanoids died millions and hundreds of thousands of years ago.

Click to expand...

Science takes the world that we have around us. The world that you can see and touch.
Man does not have the world as God created it to test. He can't go back to into the garden of Eden or back to before the flood.
He has a groaning corrupted world to test and only this corrupted world.
The basic assumptions made in radiometric dating are: Every radioactive element will decay at a constant rate. This may very well hold true for the corrupted world man can test now, it does not hold true to the world before the flood or the world before the fall. Man assumes the world has ALWAYS given back the same equation. I challenge that because not only was the ball of the earth made outside of time but it is quite clear major changes occurred to the worlds governing laws.

Man's word or God's word? Which holds ultimate truth?
Science says man can't walk on water -God's word says yes he can.
Science says donkey's can't talk -God's word says yes they can.
Science says man can't come back from the dead -God's word says yes they can.
Jeremiah 8:9
The wise men shall be put to shame; they shall be dismayed and taken; behold, they have rejected the word of the Lord, so what wisdom is in them?

3) St Paul wrote that death came only after the Fall, "But the gift is not like the trespass. For if by the one man’s trespass the many died, how much more have the grace of God and the gift which comes through the grace of the one man Jesus Christ overflowed to the many." (Rom 5:15)

4) But the death St Paul and other biblical writers talk about is not physical death.

5) The following verses confirm that spiritual death is what is in view:

Wis 2:23 For God formed us to be imperishable;
the image of his own nature he made us.
24 But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world,
and they who are allied with him experience it.
3:1 The souls of the righteous are in the hand of God,
and no torment shall touch them.
2 They seemed, in the view of the foolish, to be dead;
and their passing away was thought an affliction
3 and their going forth from us, utter destruction.
But they are in peace.
4 For if to others, indeed, they seem punished,
yet is their hope full of immortality;

Click to expand...

The fall caused spiritual and physical death.
Genesis 3:19



19 By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread
until you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.”

Physical death is as much a part of it as spiritual death.
1 Corinthians 15
20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

Eden was a picture of the end times.
Revelation 21:4
He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."
Again this is not just spiritual it is physical as well.

When the dead in Christ rise, it is physically as well as spiritually.
1 Thessalonians 4:16-17



16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
The spiritual and the physical are woven together.

Brightmoon said:

. These pictures are what your hands and feet would look like if the cells between your digits didn’t die ! Reality doesn’t match creationist ideas very well

Click to expand...

No one is saying that didn't happen, it simply isn't what the Bible calls death.
I gave you a very clear answer to what Biblical death is. It is ONLY creatures with breath and soul.
What you are calling 'death' in English they didn't call death, another word was used.

Every time a creationist says "There was no death before sin" they are saying "No creatures with breath and soul died prior to Adams sin" They are not talking about cells, plants, bacteria or anything else. I must have said this to you at least 5 or more by now.

Now do you think you can remember this for future reference? Because I am not going to type out every time in brackets (creatures with breath and soul, not cells, not plants, not fungi, not bacteria)