A refutal, please:

[ObbiQuiet]

This was an argument posted by someone I know. I have given my refute, but I was wondering if you could also give a refute to the statements. (I feel my refute wasn't as good as I'm sure you guys could come up with)

Thanks,
Obbi

Evolution is impossible based upon the information theory. Every living thing has a DNA code, every living organism has a genetic code programmed with the exact information to produce, preserve and repair that living thing. It has no less than that necessary information and no more than that necessary information.
Honest scientists must admit that all of life had to be designed individually by an immense intelligent mind that programmed everything. Now when you think about the complexity of this, it is absolutely staggering. Just think about the human brain. The human brain is more complex than a 747, for example. A 747 is made up of six million components. Can you imagine a 747 evolving out of a scrap pile of metal? It's absolutely ridiculous.

Go ahead and use science, the more science looks at life, the more complex it becomes. The body, for example, is made up of trillions of cells. In just one of those cells, one out of trillions, the amount of genetic information in one of those cells has been estimated to fill at least one thousand 500 page books. That's to run one cell out of trillions in one human body. And most scientists think that is an underestimation of the complexity. Where did all this information come from? Better, from whom did all this information come?

To make evolution the answer is ridiculous. Why then do scientists continue to advocate this ridiculous theory of evolution motivated by chance? Why do they do that?

Well, the bottom line is they do it to avoid God. They do that to push God out of their lives, to avoid His law, to avoid His standards, to avoid His will, to avoid His Word and to avoid His judgment on their lives. Evolution is nothing more than what Henry Morris so aptly called it, "The long war against God."

 

[nyj]

Every living thing has a DNA code, every living organism has a genetic code programmed with the exact information to produce, preserve and repair that living thing. It has no less than that necessary information and no more than that necessary information.

Oh really? Ask him to tell us what the scientific consensus is on how many genes are actually in the Human Genome. Is it 10,000, 40,000 or 100,000? Those are all figures thrown out by scientists at one point or another in the field of human genetics (by most predictions, but not all, the number sits close to 50,000). And then of course, there is the little thing called pseudogenes.

How he can make this claim, when the experts don't even know, is beyond me.

 

[ocean]

Evo is an atheist lie created by Satan. I used to believe this lie, but now I am free from it.

 

[ObbiQuiet]

Evo is an atheist lie created by Satan. I used to believe this lie, but now I am free from it.

Congratulations.

Btw, thank you for your response nyj.

 

[Arikay]

You can also mention that the 747 out of a junkyard is a strawman as it is not how evolution works.

Then you could also mention (wish I had a link) that boeing**used an evolutionary program to help "evolve" the design of their newest airplane.

 

[ObbiQuiet]

You can also mention that the 747 out of a junkyard is a strawman as it is not how evolution works.

Yeah, I did.

Then you could also mention (wish I had a link) that boeing**used an evolutionary program to help "evolve" the design of their newest airplane.

Really? Nice. Not for the sake of the argument, it's just interesting.

 

[Arikay]

You can also mention that he does not know what Evolution is (as is apparent).

And that Evolution is not atheism. God could have easily created using Evolution (like by specifically making mutations etc.). He is not really fighting Evolution vs creationism, but Atheism vs Theism, and he is basically saying that if evolution is right, atheists have won. A rather amazing weapon to give atheists in such a fight, and that since creationism is a falsified scientific theory, he is equating ignorance and lies as theism.

However, lucky for him, even though he does not want to admit it, Evolution is Not atheism, it is science, and science is agnostic.

 

[ObbiQuiet]

You can also mention that he does not know what Evolution is (as is apparent).

Mentioned that.

And that Evolution is not atheism. God could have easily created using Evolution (like by specifically making mutations etc.). He is not really fighting Evolution vs creationism, but Atheism vs Theism, and he is basically saying that if evolution is right, atheists have won. A rather amazing weapon to give atheists in such a fight, and that since creationism is a falsified scientific theory, he is equating ignorance and lies as theism.

Very good point.

However, lucky for him, even though he does not want to admit it, Evolution is Not atheism, it is science, and science is agnostic.

Also mentioned that.

... what would be better is if they actually READ the things from www.talkorigins.org that I give them...

 

[Arikay]

Do you give them in link form or in quote form? I find many people dont bother to go to links.

So if you wanted to check to see if they were serious about the discussion, give them a link and see if they read it, however, if you want to get the information accross, I would suggest quoting it in your reply.

 

[ObbiQuiet]

Do you give them in link form or in quote form? I find many people dont bother to go to links.

So if you wanted to check to see if they were serious about the discussion, give them a link and see if they read it, however, if you want to get the information accross, I would suggest quoting it in your reply.

I am quoting. Trust me, I KNOW how links get ignored. I have tested it before.

Argument with creationist: I gave a long list of links "supporting my point".

As expected, his response was, "All those links are bs lies."

I knew then (or at least had proof) that he did not actually read those links. I had actually given links supporting HIS point on purpose. So either he disagrees with his own point, or he never bothered to even read the information before rejecting it outright.

He didn't respond.

 

[Arikay]

LoL.

It makes me think of a story about a teacher I had, who was going to retire, but decided to keep teaching to keep a good teacher in school, after their Son turned in a Very long report, that half way through insulted his teacher, and got an A on it.

 

[ObbiQuiet]

LoL.

It makes me think of a story about a teacher I had, who was going to retire, but decided to keep teaching to keep a good teacher in school, after their Son turned in a Very long report, that half way through insulted his teacher, and got an A on it.

That's so funny it's sad.

 

[Jet Black]

excellent work obbiquiet

 

[lucaspa]

This was an argument posted by someone I know. I have given my refute, but I was wondering if you could also give a refute to the statements. (I feel my refute wasn't as good as I'm sure you guys could come up with)

Thanks,
Obbi

I've got a thread on how evolution gives information.
http://www.christianforums.com/t52353

That should answer your question. Feel free to post it or parts of it wherever you need to.

 

[ObbiQuiet]

Mucho gracias, senor.

 

[TCapp]

I had actually given links supporting HIS point on purpose.

Ouch. How embarrasing for said person. :o

 

[revolutio]

Honest scientists must admit that all of life had to be designed individually by an immense intelligent mind that programmed everything. Now when you think about the complexity of this, it is absolutely staggering. Just think about the human brain. The human brain is more complex than a 747, for example. A 747 is made up of six million components. Can you imagine a 747 evolving out of a scrap pile of metal? It's absolutely ridiculous.

Who programmed the DNA that makes up that intelligent being? If he doesn't have DNA who created him since 'honest' scientists know that intelligent beings cannot arise on their own.

 

[Freodin]

Who programmed the DNA that makes up that intelligent being? If he doesn't have DNA who created him since 'honest' scientists know that intelligent beings cannot arise on their own.

I presented the following argument before, but never got an answer from creationists. Perhaps it has its worth.

Assumption: complex systems must be constructed by intelligent beings.
Observation: human thought is a complex system

Conclusion: You do not have free will - God constructs your thoughts.


As this goes againts the often used claim of "God does not want robots", it should make creationists think about the first assumption.

 

[nyj]

I presented the following argument before, but never got an answer from creationists. Perhaps it has its worth.

Assumption: complex systems must be constructed by intelligent beings.
Observation: human thought is a complex system

Conclusion: You do not have free will - God constructs your thoughts.


As this goes againts the often used claim of "God does not want robots", it should make creationists think about the first assumption.

Unless of course those creationists adhere to calvinistic theology.

 

[ThePhoenix]

Heh, I once tested it by posting a dud link in another forum. Four people responded with heated arguements to my one sentance long reply (not counting URL length) before I revealed that if they had actually bothered to click the link they wouldn't have wasted a second of their time on it.

Anyway, refuting that arguement:

One look at the behavior of air molecules in a room should reveal the stunning complexity of everything (except a perfect vacuum, and even then quantum physics has shown that even vacuums are not empty). A small room, merely 6'x6'x6' contains 2.15x10^26 molecules, moving at an average 1200 feet per second. Calculating the paths of every molecule in this small room in real time would be impossible if every supercomputer on the planet was employed. Does complexity necessarily then imply design? If it does then clearly some omnipotent being layed out the path of each air molecule, because the path is far far far too complex for us to calculate.

However a simpler theory presents itself. What if the complexity was unnecessary? The behavior of each air molecule is hardly dependent on any other. So to with evolution. Originally protein chains came into being, the result of large amounts of random chance applied over long periods of time. Such chains proved to have a self perpeptuating element. Gradually, through chance, some chains developed shells of carbon, and became self-perpeptuating. Impossible? Perhaps on a simple time frame, but in context of 3 BILLION years highly improbable seems like it might occur (remember we have a biased sampling - on any planet where it did not occur we wouldn't be around to document its non-occurance. Maybe there are 5,000 planets on which life could have evolved and did not, and there is no one to document the missed opportunity). Certainly God could have given it a shove in the right direction, but this isn't a theological debate.

Once such life came into existance, it mutated through simple radiation and copying errors. Like the air molecules it is impossible to document the course of all such mutations, but nature provided a convienent documenting mechanism. Those that were viable survived. Those that didn't failed. Those that were more viable then others survived better. Cooperation was also a key. Evidence shows that bacteria live in colonies, sharing genetic information freely. Therefore viable genes would have been shared with others, whereas unviable ones would have been eliminated.

Eventually several bacteria in these scums became dependant upon eachother. By differentiating in function each bacterium could more efficiantly produce important survival elements, thus boosting viability, and allowing the organism to out-compete others. Complexity increases the survivability of the organism.

The rest follows logically. An organism a hundred, or a thousand times larger then a bacteria can easily prey on them, and another a thousand times larger then it can prey on the preditor. Large colonies of cells could more efficiently collect sunlight, necessary for life, and distribute it, leading to large plants. Taking the process from single cells to today took another 3 billion years.