Evidence against the Theory of evolution. Thread Moved From Teens

[HotRhymez]

macroevolution contradicts young-earth creationist beliefs

Have you ever considered that MAYBE just MAYBE the YEC's could be incorrect?

 

[Klavier]

You don't have to jump in and defend a flawed post, HotRhymez. I personally think evolution is true, but I'm sure there are more logical reasons to present the statement for creationism other than the ones in this post

 

[The Madcap]

Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

It's overwhelming how many wrong statements are in this sentence. First, evolutionists do not necessarily believe life resulted from non-life, nor does the theory of evolution state that. The Darwinian theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is about the origins of SPECIES, NOT life. Abiogenesis is what you're referring to. Secondly, matter resulting from nothing isn't even something within the field of biology. I assume that is attacking the Big Bang Theory, and I can already tell you have a very poor understanding of The Big Bang Theory, because the origins of matter are to The Big Bang Theory as Abiogenesis is to Evolution. Where did all this matter come from? We don't know. The Big Bang Theory is really more of an explanation of our universe right now.

Life is far too complex to have resulted from any chance happening.

The processes believed to create life are not random processes, nor is Evolution.

Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.</b> <i>Life is far too complex to have resulted from any chance happening. Even the simplest form of life consists of billions of parts working together and needed for the basic functioning of the organism.

So? It's not as if we believe this happened completely by random processes.

These could not have sprung into being at the same time and interrelating together by chance. Life coming from matter would violate the law of biogenesis and the cell principle which state that life must come only from life.

I don't think it's believed to be simply random chance. And the term &quot;life&quot; is very much like the term &quot;adult&quot;. When someone turns 18, they are an adult, even though there really is no distinction between when that person is 18 or 17.99999 years old. It's really for legal purposes. Life is very similar, in that when it arises, there isn't really much of a distinction between right before it was officially defined life.

Secondly, we find that the first matter could not simply have come into existence from nothing. This is a logical absurdity.

This has NOTHING to do with evolution. Evolutionists aren't saying this. If anyone is saying this, it might be a physicist or cosmologist. It can be truthfully told that vacuum fluctuations are indeed the appearance of matter, at random and seemingly without cause. The universe is thought to have been a vacuum fluctuation. But usually, these sort of things spawn a pair of particles (one matter, one anti-matter) and they eliminate each other resulting in no net loss or gain of matter in the universe. But keep in mind, this is a random event, the direction and position of the particles can never fully be known (Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle) so it may occur that every now and then a particle escapes its annihilation. And so there you have what is theorized not only to be the birth of our universe but of the matter in it as well. All products of vacuum fluctuations... which leads to ideas like the multiverse and M Theory and leads to another question.

Finally, we find that morality in humanity as well as our mental capacity and utter dominance of the physical world make humanity set apart by any reasonable means from the rest of the living world.

Do you seriously think evolutionists have not thought of this? Morality is very disputable, it it's very possible that morality and &quot;rules&quot;, so to speak, were invented as a form of protection. Regardless, it has nothing to do with Evolution. It is very likely, judging from the fossil record, that there were once species that were much smarter than something such as chimpanzees, which we are believed to have evolved from. But the human race is viewed as a very unique result of evolution, and not something that happens often in evolution.

The simplest organism capable of independent life, the prokargote bacterial cell, is a masterpiece of miniaturized complexity which makes a spaceship seem rather low-tech.

So what? It's not as if this occured from random processes. Lets say this is an evolved form of life from less complex life. Natural selection is the very opposite of random chance. Lets say this example is the very origin of life. I don't think Abiogenesis is absolute random chance either.

The cell needs all its basic parts with their various functions, for survival; therefore, if the cell had evolved, it would have meant that billions of parts would have had to come into existence at the same time, in the same place, and then simultaneously come together in a precise order.

That is not proper use of the word &quot;therefore&quot;. &quot;Therefore&quot; implies that an absolute conclusion has been reached through proof, which is not the case in the sentence. For the reasons you gave, there is no reason why for evolution to occur, billions of parts MUST occur in one generation. Mutations, considered the driving force of evolution, ARE possible in cells. When mutation occurs, the cells that contain harmful mutations die out through Natural Selection, and the ones with mutations making them superior are the ones who don't die out. Keep in mind, molecular evolution with cells and bacteria take much longer than other kinds of evolution. Molecular and bacterial evolution take up a good 90% of the timeline of evolution.

the probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop!

Again, this assumes Abiogenesis is done through completely random processes, and this is a lie. Also, this has NOTHING to do with evolution.

research has tended to widen rather than to narrow the gap that exists between organic and inorganic matter.

Even if this is true, this has nothing to do with evolution, nor does it really say anything for Abiogenesis.

The Law of biogenesis...declares that life must come from life but evolutionists ignore the law by stating that sometime in the past during, supposedly, the early history of the earth, there were processes and conditions that allowed for life to originate from non-life. This, of course, is unproven and an unprovable assumption.

Again, this doesn't have to do with Evolution. Abiogenesis is what you're referring to, and it is possible, and has not been falsified. It's impossible to prove this happened in the past, but it is possible to prove that it is possible.

We find that the same elements that supposedly created life in the beginning still exist today. Why can't they then produce life again?

Perhaps they have. This is a bit difficult to observe in nature, considering how this happens on a scale so small the human eye cannot see. And again, NOTHING to do with evolution.

The cell principle, excepted in Biology and all science, states that all cells come from only pre-existing cells.

So? That doesn't mean mutations cannot occur. They clearly can and do.

We certainly observe that life does not derive from non-life now.

You can't really observe a negative in the way you're saying. Abiogenesis has not been disproved, and it is possible. Study it some.

Life is more than the sum of its parts. This may be why, at least in part, science cannot define life. It can only give the characteristics of living things.

It can't really define life simply because of semantic debate. And I don't really see how this can be taken as an argument against evolution.

Darwin wrote, &quot;The first appearance of new beings...is a mystery of mysteries.&quot;

Evolutionists and biologists have come a long way from Darwin's day. The discovery of DNA, RNA, the genome, etc. have really made evolution an overwhelmingly strong theory. And if by the term &quot;beings&quot;, he meant &quot;life&quot;, then yes, we don't know exactly how it came to be. But this has nothing to do with evolution, and the theory of Abiogenesis still is here.

All the matter we see, the sun and so forth, are said by evolutionists to have begun by a mixture of gases in the atmosphere. But, from where did the gases come and where did even the space for them come? Science cannot account for something coming from nothing (and neither can common sense account for it) and this is not to even mention the complexity of matter which even adds to this absurdity. In fact, as mentioned, when you have nothing, you do not even have the space for the something that is to come from it.

The Big Bang Theory and cosmologists can explain very well the questions you ask. Quit saying &quot;something from nothing&quot;. The Big Bang does not say that, and perhaps read up on vacuum fluctuations. And again, we don't know for sure where this matter came from. The theory of evolution certainly doesn't attempt to answer this. This is not an argument against evolution.

 

[The Madcap]

In addition, without the sun, etc., there would be no gravity.

.........This is just wrong....

Therefore, those supposed gases from which all things supposedly come would simply disseminate into space not draw together to form anything.

Conclusion is based on a lie, therefore it's an invalid conclusion.

Morality is generally accepted as a distinct characteristic of humanity. This in itself creates an unbridgeable gap between people and animals.

So what? Humans can also create computers and cars. This isn't an argument against evolution. The gap isn't unbridgeable. We have fossils of species such as neanderthals, which you cannot conclude were absolutely without a sense of morality.

Famous evolutionist Roger Lewin proclaimed of the gap between people and animals, &quot;Our intelligence, our reflective consciousness, our extreme technological facility, our complex spoken language, our sense of moral and ethical values -- each of these is apparently sufficient to set us apart from nature. Together they are seen to give us `dominion over nature'. He adds that for evolutionists this gap is an &quot;embarrassment, something to be explained away.

I don't care who said that, it's not really an embarrassment. We don't know that much about the more recent species we are believed to evolve from, and it's very likely that they are more close to us in intelligence and technology than the animals in existence today.

Alfred Russell Wallace, considered to be the co-inventor with Darwin of natural selection was said to have &quot;Found this argument (natural selection) convincing until he attempted to explain the advanced state of human faculties.

We have come a long way in understanding evolution since his death in 1913. Plus, even if he died yesterday, if he stopped believing in evolution, so what? Not an argument against evolution.

Regarding people's intellectual powers and moral sense among other things, Wallace also asserted that these &quot;could not have been developed by variation and natural selection alone, and..., therefore, some other influence, law, or agency is required to account for them.He also concluded, &quot;...a superior intelligence has guided the development of man in a definite direction, and for a special purpose.

First off, he isn't the only person that believes that, secondly, we've come a long way in understanding evolution since he died. Who cares what he says? Why don't you actually bring up some evidence against evolution or some arguments against the evidence for evolution?

Wallace along with famous evolutionist Robert Broom concluded &quot;Divine intervention was the only explanation for the origin of the qualities that made Homo Sapiens so special.

We've come a long way since those two have died. Plus, it is not the only explanation, or proof, of an intelligent designer, and I don't care who says that. Plus, this isn't an argument against evolution.

Many evolutionists have tried to argue that humans are 99% similar chemically to apes and blood precipitation tests do indicate that the chimpanzee is people's closest relative. Yet regarding this we must observe the following: &quot;Milk chemistry indicates that the donkey is man's closest relative.&quot; &quot;Cholesterol level tests indicate that the garter snake is man's closest relative.&quot; &quot;Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the chicken is man's closest relative.&quot; &quot;On the basis of another type of blood chemistry test, the butter bean is man's closest relative.

&quot;Chemically&quot; is not an accurate term, and it's more misleading. I think you're referring to DNA. And yes, it is very identical. At least 95%. Anyways, this argument basically uses that term to ridicule evolution, when in reality evolutionists are speaking a bit more specifically. Looking at DNA alone, I highly doubt we are as close to pigs and chickens as you're making it seem.

We find human's dominance over animals as utter and complete making a common ancestry virtually impossible. Wallace and Broom asserted, &quot;The whole purpose, the only raison d'etre (reason for being) of the world...was the development of the human spirit with the human body.

The first sentence is wrong. Simple as that. Anyways, Wallace and Broom's thoughts on spirituality don't really have to do with evolution, and that's getting more into philosophy, and their thoughts are very subjective and no more or less valid than nihilism or hedonism. But scientifically, looking at evolution, this part of the post begins with a lie, and then doesn't really do anything as an argument against evolution.

Broom asserted, &quot;Much of evolution looks as if it had been planned to result in man, and in other animals and plants to make the world a suitable place for him to dwell in (and therefore)...the evolution of man must have been planned by some spiritual power.

Horrible use of &quot;therefore&quot;. The reason it seems that way is because man simply adapted to their environment. And doesn't really do anything to argue that evolution is either less likely or impossible.

Regarding the 99% similarity chemically to apes figure, why is our dominion over the apes so extensive if the 99% is so significant?

Well, why do you think? What a creationist and an evolutionist think on this matter doesn't hurt evolution. It's a fact that our DNA is roughly 95-99% similar to apes and chimpanzees. The answer to that won't hurt evolution.

Perhaps Darwin would have abandoned his own theory had he realized these three gaps in the order of living things. He stated, &quot;I would give nothing for the theory of natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.

I'm not sure what three gaps you're referring to, but there is nothing that exists that requires miraculous or divine intervention that has been observed. Well, NO evidence against evolution given...

 

[Klavier]

The Madcap, I applaud your patience and time taken to type out a thought-out answer. The only problem is he's going to completely disregard it and think you're just another "evilutionist".

 

[HeDied4Me]

The Madcap, I applaud your patience and time taken to type out a thought-out answer. The only problem is he's going to completely disregard it and think you're just another "evilutionist".

No need to assume the worst. I think in another thread he said he realized that what he posted here was not a strong argument.

 

[The Madcap]

The Madcap, I applaud your patience and time taken to type out a thought-out answer. The only problem is he's going to completely disregard it and think you're just another &quot;evilutionist&quot;.

Yeah, but the reason I do so is not only for the author, but hopefully the people who thought that was a good post (either users or lurkers) will read mine, too.

 

[Klavier]

No need to assume the worst. I think in another thread he said he realized that what he posted here was not a strong argument.

Well, I hope he reads the response here then. It's a damn good one.

 

[superman27e]

no need to read it, ive already said that my post wasnt that great at all. and please dont cuss.

 

[Klavier]

You could at least take the time to read it and see where you went wrong.

 

[TheDerek]

Mod Hat
Thread Moved From Teens. ​

 

[superman27e]

i didnt write that, i copied it from some sight. and when i read it i saw where i was wrong

 

[Gracchus]

i didnt write that, i copied it from some sight. and when i read it i saw where i was wrong

Plagiarism and lack of thought! And now the mod has moved it to the "Creation & Evolution" forum, where the Evil Atheist Conspiracy lurks. oooo! You should be scared!

 

[Blayz]

Plagiarism and lack of thought! And now the mod has moved it to the "Creation & Evolution" forum, where the Evil Atheist Conspiracy lurks. oooo! You should be scared!

Given the intellectual effort in this OP, I agree it should have been moved from "teens", but perhaps a more fitting forum would have been "babies", "zygotes", "cement slabs" or "rapture ready"

 

[Blackrend]

Given the intellectual effort in this OP, I agree it should have been moved from "teens", but perhaps a more fitting forum would have been "babies", "zygotes", "cement slabs" or "rapture ready"

*Falls out of her chair laughing*

XDD

 

[RichardT]

Given the intellectual effort in this OP, I agree it should have been moved from "teens", but perhaps a more fitting forum would have been "babies", "zygotes", "cement slabs" or "rapture ready"

lol

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

Given the intellectual effort in this OP, I agree it should have been moved from "teens", but perhaps a more fitting forum would have been "babies", "zygotes", "cement slabs" or "rapture ready"

As the proud owner of a baby, I taken offense at this statement. Mine shows much more intellectual effort than this OP.

(And ditto on the LOLZ.)

 

[Bombila]

Now, now. At least applaud the excellent long rebuttal posted by Madcap - that young thing will go far, mark my words.

EveryPrayerCounts did kinda fling this thread to the wolves.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

lol @ the tags at the bottom of the page. "Plagiarism, strawmen".

Win.

 

[Washington]

Which YEC website did you copy and past this from?

THIS one.