Evolution is a lie

[Cabal]

Since you went to Wikipedia for your proof, I went there to refute it.

Transitional form - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Don't flatter yourself that the two are comparable. Creationwiki is a joke.

To respond generally to the points it raises - how "continuous" does the evidential chain have to be? Generation by generation? Such is an unrealistic burden of proof, which is rendered totally unnecessary by the principles of evolution having already being verified. It's like saying that we know guns fire, leave a casing and can kill the target - but not seeing the bullet hit the target at a crime scene containing a dead body with a conspicuous gunshot wound, a gun and a bullet casing nearby means you can't accuse someone of murder. We have enough intermediate steps on the species-by-species level for many major ancestral lines, coupled with the basic principles of evolution to give us a very good level of evidence.

And lest we forget, fossil evidence is far from the only evidence for evolution - we have genetic evidence too.

If they aren't related to each other, then why is God creating practically identical creatures? Not much imagination for an omnipotent being, has he? In addition, a rather amusing aspect of this part of the debate is that leading creationist "scientists" can't actually agree on what these fossils are - frequently claiming that intermediate human fossils are apes or humans, with no consistency between them.

In micro-evolution although there are distinct changes that occur, if you start with a cat you still have a cat at the end, start with an elephant you have an elephant at the end etc.. In macro-evolution you start with a cat and end up with something that is not a cat but this cannot be demonstrated and remains an article of FAITH that is is true.

"Something that is not a cat" - hmmm, how precise. Let's back up for a second here, BH, what exactly do you think evolution claims it would evolve into?

Because cats being a taxonomic family and all, something that evolved from a cat would still be a cat.

Again, I suggest you learn your science from actual scientific sources, not creationist mumbo-jumbo.

I didn't call demonstrated results a bugaboo, I called having to DEMONSTRATE the truth of a theory a bugaboo. Abiogenesis would have us believe that we went from non-life, non-sustaining, non-replicating matter to living, self-sustaining and self-replicating orgnanisms in one felled swoop ... and yes the probability of this has been examined by mathematicians and is quite, shall we say, unlikely.

You still haven't posted a mathematical argument, BH. Are you taking creationist website nonsense on faith? If you have a mathematical argument, post it.

Oh, and did you read the link I posted? We've produced self-replicators in the lab. Several times. It's already been done, so you're wrong.

Oh, so many posters on this board are evolutionary scientists and they may be feeling slandered ... too bad.

Well, that and the 9th commandment, Christian.

Out of curiosity, BH, what is your profession? I just would like to know, so I can make up smears about an entire field I know nothing about. Fair's fair. Don't like it? "Too bad."

True science can be demonstrated to be true and this is where macro-evolution fails badly. Abiogenesis cannot be demonstrated by physical evidence or laboratory demonstration yet we are expected to believe it happened. Macro-evolution cannot be demonsrated yet we are expected to believe it is true ... the scientific burden of proof of a theory is on its proponents, not the skeptics. As for your Wiki link 'proving' evolution, one can demonstrate the evolution of computers or cars in much the same way yet we know (I hope) that computers and cars are the result of intelligent design and not random selection.

No, the comparison fails. Computers and cars don't get jiggy and make little baby computers and cars, or to put it a less snarky way, computers and cars are not self-replicators.

If you're going to draw comparisons, try and come up with ones that actually work. Then again, if you were capable with analogies you wouldn't be a creationist in the first place

 

[dad]

Don't flatter yourself that the two are comparable. Creationwiki is a joke.

To respond generally to the points it raises - how "continuous" does the evidential chain have to be? Generation by generation? Such is an unrealistic burden of proof, which is rendered totally unnecessary by the principles of evolution having already being verified.

Big mistake! Just because the gift of evolving is noticed even in the present time to some degree, does NOT mean that the trait God gave us was responsible for creation!!?? That is putting the cart before the horse, and is a statement of faith.

If I say a bathtub drips, therefore it made the oceans, it would be similar.

And lest we forget, fossil evidence is far from the only evidence for evolution - we have genetic evidence too.

There is a difference between evidencing the created trait of evolving, and evidencing ape great grandparents.

If they aren't related to each other, then why is God creating practically identical creatures?

They are in some cases related one assumes. But you do not know when that started where it ends, or how far it goes.

 

[Cabal]

Big mistake! Just because the gift of evolving is noticed even in the present time to some degree, does NOT mean that the trait God gave us was responsible for creation!!?? That is putting the cart before the horse, and is a statement of faith.

If I say a bathtub drips, therefore it made the oceans, it would be similar.

It would be, to that portion of the post. Thankfully I didn't leave it at that.

There is a difference between evidencing the created trait of evolving, and evidencing ape great grandparents.

Given that evolving is simply genetic change and heredity at its core, not really, no.

They are in some cases related one assumes. But you do not know when that started where it ends, or how far it goes.

I don't? No-one does. There is no rhyme nor reason to creationist thinking in this regard.

We're done now. Run along.

 

[Jazer]

If I say a bathtub drips, therefore it made the oceans, it would be similar.

That is pretty much what they are saying. If a mutation is equal to a drip, then it would take a lot of mutations for evolution so work.

30 drips/minute = 43,200 drips/day
43,200 drips/day = 10.8 liters/day or 2.85 U.S. gallons/day
2.85 U.S. gallons/day = 1,041 U.S. gallons/year
343,423,668,428,484,681,262 gallons of water in the oceans.

 

[Cabal]

That is pretty much what they are saying. If a mutation is equal to a drip, then it would take a lot of mutations for evolution so work.

30 drips/minute = 43,200 drips/day
43,200 drips/day = 10.8 liters/day or 2.85 U.S. gallons/day
2.85 U.S. gallons/day = 1,041 U.S. gallons/year
343,423,668,428,484,681,262 gallons of water in the oceans.

Good thing no-one here said that.

 

[sandwiches]

Nope, an atheist is a person who doesn't believe in God (be it by belief or practice). It does not matter their reason for disbelief. If you don't eat a cookie, is it because you know it's poison or because you're full from the chicken you just had? It doesn't matter. You chose not to eat the cookie.

Maybe it's because I don't have a cookie or because the cookie you've offered can't be found anywhere.

 

[Non sequitur]

Nope, an atheist is a person who doesn't believe in God (be it by belief or practice). It does not matter their reason for disbelief. If you don't eat a cookie, is it because you know it's poison or because you're full from the chicken you just had? It doesn't matter. You chose not to eat the cookie.

This cookie?

 

[Jazer]

Good thing no-one here said that.

Fred Hoyle uses the number 10^40,000. "and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)^2000 = 10^40,000..."

 

[sandwiches]

Fred Hoyle uses the number 10^40,000. "and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)^2000 = 10^40,000..."

Good thing evolution isn't random.

 

[Cabal]

Fred Hoyle uses the number 10^40,000. "and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)^2000 = 10^40,000..."

That's nice.

And again, as ever, no calculations are produced.* Again, simply quoting a number and name-dropping is insufficient to back up the point. And it still doesn't change the fact that I wasn't using the argument either you or dad described, so this tangent is irrelevant.

*(Don't bother actually providing one now though - I've debated probability with you enough times to know you haven't the first clue what you're talking about. I'm curious to see if BondiHarry actually has what it takes to present a calculation, but given creationists' track record on this topic, I'm really not holding my breath)

 

[Non sequitur]

Fred Hoyle uses the number 10^40,000. "and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)^2000 = 10^40,000..."

Not sure if you were aware, but they made a wiki page, just for that...

 

[CabVet]

Not sure if you were aware, but they made a wiki page, just for that...

Oh, but he is very aware, I already showed him (and others) how broken this logic really is. Here is another statistical exercise following the same failed logic:

The chances of you existing

But regardless of how many times we refute this, I am sure it will be mentioned again (by the same people) in a few days.

 

[Jazer]

Oh, but he is very aware, I already showed him (and others) how broken this logic really is.

I do not have the burden of proof here, evolutionists do. The point is that life is complex. Organisms have complex systems. Many organisms have almost identical systems that would have had to evolve independent of each other. Complex systems can not work without all the elements. For example for one cell to communicate with another cell requires up to 40 chemicals. If even one of those chemicals is missing communication does not take place.

Evos simply have not presented a pathway that these complex systems could have followed for their development. They just show up one day in their full complexity. Dawkins attempts to take this on in his book "The Blind Watchmaker" but he fails to address the issue and he fails to get the job done. William Paley argument is more valid today then ever, because we understand more then ever just how complex living organisms are.

 

[CabVet]

I do not have the burden of proof here, evolutionists do. The point is that life is complex.

That is where you are mistaken. Evolution provides a good explanation, with evidence, for what we see. An intelligent designer (whatever you want to call him or her) on the other hand is supported by faith and faith alone. So, the burden of proof lies with those that claim such a designer exists.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

I do not have the burden of proof here, evolutionists do. The point is that life is complex. Organisms have complex systems. Many organisms have almost identical systems that would have had to evolve independent of each other. Complex systems can not work without all the elements. For example for one cell to communicate with another cell requires up to 40 chemicals. If even one of those chemicals is missing communication does not take place.

Evos simply have not presented a pathway that these complex systems could have followed for their development. They just show up one day in their full complexity. Dawkins attempts to take this on in his book "The Blind Watchmaker" but he fails to address the issue and he fails to get the job done.

You basically just admitted you didn't read "The Blind Watchmaker."

 

[Jazer]

You basically just admitted you didn't read "The Blind Watchmaker."

Why don't you read it and present your case. It does not really matter to me. It does not matter if evolution is true or not. In fact I use a lot of evidence from population genetics to show the Bible is true. Evolution people also lean very heavy on population genetics.

 

[Non sequitur]

Oh, but he is very aware, I already showed him (and others) how broken this logic really is. Here is another statistical exercise following the same failed logic:

The chances of you existing

But regardless of how many times we refute this, I am sure it will be mentioned again (by the same people) in a few days.

THAT IS SO FUNNY.

Even though follow-up studies failed to confirm it, and it's still kinda botched, my favorite, "Killer Sperm constitute about 83% of all the sperm -- these are sperm that attack any sperm from another man that may be in the woman".

 

[And-U-Say]

Fred Hoyle uses the number 10^40,000. "and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)^2000 = 10^40,000..."

And Hoyle is wrong. He is not a chemist and that number is stupidly bogus. Here is a copy of a post I made 5 years ago. read and learn.

Having looked over the responses here, there is a missing point that needs to be added to the dicussion. Not only in this thread, but in all threads of this nature.

Some have looked at these fantastically long odds and stated that it could still happen. I don't buy that. If the odds get low enough then we can certainly rule out certain events, especially if they were actually at 10^40,000 to 1.

However, the important point we need to keep in mind is whether the process is truly random. If we have 2 dice and we roll them, the odds of getting 2 (snake eyes) is 1 in 36. But... what if the dice were not evenly balanced? What if they were "loaded"? Properly loaded dice can yeild as much as a 50:50 chance of getting snake eyes. So, when calculating odds, it is of critical importance to understand if the process is truly random.

Abiogenesis is really all about chemistry. And chemistry is not random. Put some reactants in a beaker and the outcome will not be an even mix of every possible product. Some products will be preferred (for a number of reasons) and thus be in much greater concentration. In some cases, a single product will be so preferred that it will be essentially the only thing in the beaker. Why? Chemical reactions are governed by what are called "mechanisms". A mechanism is a set of steps, almost a dance, that the molecules go through when reacted together. If there is only one dance, then there will be essentially only one product, despite numerous possibilities.

When it comes to abiogenesis, the real question is: are there mechanisms which lead to biological compounds and even simple forms of life? If there are, then life becomes essentially inevitable (within bounds of temperature, pressure, and availability of raw materials). If there are no such mechanisms, then life becomes even more improbable than the worst of such calculations we see above.

The problem? Chemistry is complex. Understanding mechanisms is very, very hard. And time consuming. And expensive. We already know that there are a variety of conditions which convert raw materials into amino acids, a very important first step. So there are mechanisms to begin the process of making life.

But there are so many possible environments/conditions that have existed on earth with so many possible combinations of raw and processed materials that it is really hard to investigate the further mechanisms that may be involved in generating life. It will take a long time to solve this.

So, the bottoom line here is that such calculations as outlined in the OP are useless. Chemistry doesn't work that way and Hoyle should have known it. The real answer is that nobody knows the real odds for life.

However, being a polymer chemist for the last 24 years, I have seen way too many things which were originally thought "impossible" become not only possible, but inevitable with the discovery of the right mechanisms and conditions. Indeed, my company would be out of business if chemistry was random. In making polymers we defy staggering odds on a daily basis. And since life is here, it would seem that the mechanisms are around, we just need to discover them.

 

[rikerjoe]

And Hoyle is wrong. He is not a chemist and that number is stupidly bogus. Here is a copy of a post I made 5 years ago. read and learn.

 

[JoeyArnold]

Jazer said that God is in control of everything. You said that Micheal Jordan does not control everything [in a basketball game]. Now if God is in control like Michael Jordan (that is: not in control of everything) that contradicts what Jazer said.

I used an illustration that says God is in control of the outcome of eternity but God is not brainwashing us like robots & making everybody & everything to do exactly what He wants us to do. Michael Jordan will shoot the winning basket to win the game. If we are on God's team then we get to win because God's team is going to win. But we all get a choice to be on His team or not. So God doesn't control what we do. We do what we want. But God is in control of the things that really matter. We have the choice of either being part of that or not.