Creationist: Do you have scientific reasons for rejecting Evolution?

[ThePenguinMafia]

I dont know if this counts as science. But evolution cannot explain 'which came first the chicken or the egg?' Creationism however states that chickens came first.

The egg, and it can and has explained it.

 

[Herman Hedning]

Do you think that man really landed on the moon? Is there enough evidence to show that he did?

Are you saying you don't believe man has landed on the moon, or is this supposed to be an example of where there is enough evidence?

 

[JohnR7]

Are you saying you don't believe man has landed on the moon, or is this supposed to be an example of where there is enough evidence?

It is an example of where there is a substantial number of people who do not feel that the evidence is sufficent to convince them that it is true.

 

[Asimis]

The question is: How creditable is the evidence. Johnson and Strobel both have degrees in law and they both feel that the evidence is deceptive.

Degrees in law? Why not biology or other relevant fields?

Web site after web site shows the so called evidence to be a fake, fraud, fabrication and so on.

Which websites? This is your chance to present the scientific evidence for Creationism. Or did my little rule for this thread (not using The Bible) block your only source of evidence?


As

 

[Asimis]

It does not matter how much so called evidence there is if it is all bogas and ends up being falsified.

You have said this a couple of times already but you have failed to present anything to back up your claim.

Who knows, maybe someday they will get it right. But for now it is anything but right.

What is wrong with Evolution? Please give specific examples.



As.

 

[JohnR7]

You have said this a couple of times already but you have failed to present anything to back up your claim.

There are lots of creationist sites that show all of the evolution frauds and hoaxs. There is no reason for me to duplicate their efforts.

 

[Psudopod]

There are lots of creationist sites that show all of the evolution frauds and hoaxs. There is no reason for me to duplicate their efforts.

Yes, but have got any that have not been either refuted, or the hoax shown to be irrelevent to evolution?

 

[Asimis]

There are lots of creationist sites that show all of the evolution frauds and hoaxs. There is no reason for me to duplicate their efforts.

So you won't present this evidence? You are not duplicating their efforts at all if you show the evidence they have.


As.

 

[Edx]

Why would we not accept it or reject it on a scientific basis? We accept cloning, because there is enough evidence for it. We accept an old earth, because that is what the evidence shows. We reject evolution because there is just not enough evidence to convince us that it is true. Do you think that man really landed on the moon? Is there enough evidence to show that he did?

Come on John, you know full well that the YECs represent a massive part of the Creationits movement if not most of them.

 

[Edx]

The question is: How creditable is the evidence. Johnson and Strobel both have degrees in law and they both feel that the evidence is deceptive.

Wow, LAW degrees? They sure sound like credible scientific sources

Web site after web site shows the Creationist movements evidence to be a fake, fraud, fabrication and so on.

/corrected

 

[Edx]

There are lots of creationist sites that show all of the evolution frauds and hoaxs. There is no reason for me to duplicate their efforts.

Yes and they have all been shown to be lies and misrepresentations. The Peppered Moths, Piltdown Man, Haeckel's embryos, these are so infamous I dont think you could describe them in any other way other than as Creationist frauds and hoaxes. But they dont care how much they lie, you already were linked to the YEC-all stars-video where they trott out the same stuff, along with the brilliant argument of "dogs dont come from cats and apes dont come from humans". But you already know all of this, youve been here too long not to.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you have some good and concrete scientific objections to Evolution that are not based on The Bible?

One that always intrigues me is the mathematical impossibility of life.

Without Powerpoint it's difficult to explain, but basically they say that a protein molecule is an extremely complex system of atoms that must be in just the right place and configurement.

The chances of those atoms lining up in just the right order are given as something like (I'm typing this off the top of my head) ... as something like 10[sup]100[/sup] power.

Mathematically, anything above 10[sup]50[/sup] power is considered an impossibility.

 

[Tomk80]

One that always intrigues me is the mathematical impossibility of life.

Without Powerpoint it's difficult to explain, but basically they say that a protein molecule is an extremely complex system of atoms that must be in just the right place and configurement.

The chances of those atoms lining up in just the right order are given as something like (I'm typing this off the top of my head) ... as something like 10[sup]100[/sup] power.

Mathematically, anything above 10[sup]50[/sup] power is considered an impossibility.

Luckily then, that none of the theories explaining the origin of life take the route of as random assembly of these molecules. Which is the main error above. It treats the emergence of life as if it is a completely random event. If this were true, the odds would indeed be so incredible as to render the model moot. Unfortunately for the above argument, nobody proposes that this is how it happened.

 

[notto]

Luckily then, that none of the theories explaining the origin of life take the route of as random assembly of these molecules. Which is the main error above. It treats the emergence of life as if it is a completely random event. If this were true, the odds would indeed be so incredible as to render the model moot. Unfortunately for the above argument, nobody proposes that this is how it happened.

That chemistry is not random seems to be a concept that many creationists simply can't grasp.

The odds of hyrogen and oxygen atoms forming water in the presense of a catalysts would probably be impossible (why not h10o?) by their reasoning.

But of course chemistry is science which isn't always their strong suit.

 

[moogoob]

One that always intrigues me is the mathematical impossibility of life.

Without Powerpoint it's difficult to explain, but basically they say that a protein molecule is an extremely complex system of atoms that must be in just the right place and configurement.

The chances of those atoms lining up in just the right order are given as something like (I'm typing this off the top of my head) ... as something like 10[sup]100[/sup] power.

Mathematically, anything above 10[sup]50[/sup] power is considered an impossibility.

That's like saying "there's no way crystals can arrange into their beautiful structures because the chance of randomly getting silicon and oxygen to form in the correct lattice for a quarz crystal is mathematically impossible". It isn't. If you've got a large pocket of molten sand (silicon dioxide) and let it cool for long enough, you'll get quarz crystals. Same goes for the current theory of abiogenesis, which has nothing to do with evolution, by the way. Neither does geology (except to store fossils) , astronomy or anything else YECs believe contradicts their bible.

 

[fromdownunder]

One that always intrigues me is the mathematical impossibility of life.

Without Powerpoint it's difficult to explain, but basically they say that a protein molecule is an extremely complex system of atoms that must be in just the right place and configurement.

The chances of those atoms lining up in just the right order are given as something like (I'm typing this off the top of my head) ... as something like 10[sup]100[/sup] power.

Mathematically, anything above 10[sup]50[/sup] power is considered an impossibility.

Of course, if you take 100 decks of cards, shuffle them all together, and lay them out one at a time, the odds of the particular combination that you see before you coming out is also far higher than the number of atoms in the entire universe.

So, what you are looking at must also be impossible.

Norm

 

[Asimis]

One that always intrigues me is the mathematical impossibility of life.

Well, but Evolution is not concerned with the origin of life. That is Abiogenesis and it is a separate topic.


As.

 

[Herman Hedning]

It is an example of where there is a substantial number of people who do not feel that the evidence is sufficent to convince them that it is true.

OK, but this might still be a bad example since there is irrefutable, material evidence that man has indeed been on the moon.

• First there's the several hundred kilos of moon rock that was brought back and is available for analysis.
• Then we have the command modules that brought the crews back that, at least, can be proven to have been in space. Most of these are on display in various museums. Here is a list of their current locations.
• The flights and landings were observed by multiple parties at the time, both visually and by intercepting the audio and video transmissions. It is not particularly difficult to see that the transmissions did not come from anywhere on earth.
• And the big clincher: lots of stuff was left on the surface of the moon that can be observed from earth. OK, perhaps not easily - the landers and vehicles are too small to see - but Apollo 11, 14, and 15 left so called laser ranging retroreflectors (LRRRs), basically a kind of mirror, that is used to accurately measure the distance between earth and moon by bouncing a laser beam off them. These are still useable and anyone with the proper equipment can make sure they're indeed there.

This should be enough evidence for any sane person. There's plenty more though, and people still denying the landings despite the abundance of evidence ... Well, you know what to call them.

 

[OdwinOddball]

OK, but this might still be a bad example since there is irrefutable, material evidence that man has indeed been on the moon.

• First there's the several hundred kilos of moon rock that was brought back and is available for analysis.
• Then we have the command modules that brought the crews back that, at least, can be proven to have been in space. Most of these are on display in various museums. Here is a list of their current locations.
• The flights and landings were observed by multiple parties at the time, both visually and by intercepting the audio and video transmissions. It is not particularly difficult to see that the transmissions did not come from anywhere on earth.
• And the big clincher: lots of stuff was left on the surface of the moon that can be observed from earth. OK, perhaps not easily - the landers and vehicles are too small to see - but Apollo 11, 14, and 15 left so called laser ranging retroreflectors (LRRRs), basically a kind of mirror, that is used to accurately measure the distance between earth and moon by bouncing a laser beam off them. These are still useable and anyone with the proper equipment can make sure they're indeed there.

This should be enough evidence for any sane person. There's plenty more though, and people still denying the landings despite the abundance of evidence ... Well, you know what to call them.

Creationists?

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

This should be enough evidence for any sane person.


this is something that the presence of some people on the boards makes me particularly aware of.

what does it mean "to be persuaded"?

both this phrase quoted above and the legal system make it clear that persuasion is not just about the evidence.

the law often uses the term: reasonable person. the quote above uses a somewhat more loaded term of "sane person" both however are pointing at the same thing. Evidence is just 1/2 of the persuasion equation, the person being persuaded is the other 1/2.

we seem to forget that persuading is what you do to people, people who often have much more than just the evidence on their minds. people who are sometimes not reasonable, and even not sane. My question is how to you assure that your persuasive words are not lost on someone who is insane or just plain unreasonable? when do you throw up your hands and move on?

if the evidence is not enough to convince people, sometimes it isn't the evidence that is the problem.....