Evolution

[eternal_flame_1988]

We're told that life evolved from the very simple to the highly complex, which would make sense if it were true.

The truth, however, is that even the simplest of life forms are highly sophisticated pieces of biological machinery.



Every living cell contains DNA, the program which describes every aspect of the organism's physical design and life functions, including:

· Ingestion

· Digestion

· conversion to energy

· excretion of waste respiration

· reproduction

· circulation

· growth

· locomotion

· regulation

· response to stimuli

A cell would not really be "alive" or survive unless all life functions became operable at once, so how did even a "simple" single-celled organism "evolve"?

The DNA of a single E. coli bacteria cell contains about 10,000,000,000,000 bits of information. That's ten times the number of letters in all the books of the world's largest library.
​

Does evolution theory offer any evidence or even a truly plausible explanation as to how even a single bacteria cell came into being?

No, it does not.

​

 

[Jet Black]

If we do exist, there are only two possible explanations as to how our existence came to be. Either we had a beginning or we did not have a beginning. The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1 :1). The atheist has always maintained that there was no beginning. The idea is that matter has always existed in the form of either matter or energy; and all that has happened is that matter has been changed from form to form, but it has always been.

well what you say about atheists is not actually true. The Steady State theory was dropped some time ago.

The way we decide whether the atheist is correct or not is to see what science has discovered about this question. All galaxies are moving relative to each other. Their movement has a very distinct pattern which causes the distance between the galaxies to get greater with every passing day. We live in an expanding universe that gets bigger and bigger and bigger with every passing day.

Now let us suppose that we made time run backwards. If we are located at a certain distance today, then yesterday we were closer together. The day before that, we were still closer. Ultimately, the galaxies would have had a beginning.

again, not nescessarily. General relativity predicts a singularity, however GR and Quantum Mechanics do not agree with one another. the closes we can get hypothetically with current understanding to the beginning is one planck time.

Another reason why the universe couldn't have been here forever is for fuel reasons. For example, I attempt to drive my car without putting any more petrol into it. As I drive and drive, what is eventually going to happen? I am going to run out of petrol! If the universe has been here forever, we would have run out of hydrogen long ago. The fact is, however, that the sun still has 98% of its original hydrogen. Hydrogen is still the most abundant material in the universe. This could not be unless we had a beginning.

or at least a time frame from which the fuel in it's current form started to be used up.

The atheist assertion that matter/energy is eternal is scientifically wrong. The biblical assertion that there was a beginning is scientifically correct.

again you make the error about the atheist assertion. One side issue about the beginning here though is that we do not know it in detail to be able to make any comments of significance about it. THere are a number of possibilities such as the Ekpyrotic scenario and no boundary proposals which would complicate the issue, especially for those claiming the BB was a beginning.

THE CAUSE

If we know the creation has a beginning, we are faced with another logical question. Was the creation caused or was it not caused? The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Not only does the Bible maintain that there was a cause but it also tells us what the cause was. It was God.

Atheists tells us that matter is self-existing and not created. If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing.

no, one does not have to logically maintain this. one problem I will outline now is that you are discounting the constant speed of light in vacuum, which has serious implications regarding energy in highly curved space. again scenarios as Ekpyrosis and no boundary proposals do not have something coming from nothing. so the claim is false.

From empty space with no force,

beyond the event horizon of the BB, there is no empty space. in fact I cannot even say beyond the event horizon, because it makes no sense. nevertheless the claim that someone says the universe came from empty space is wrong, nobody says that.

no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. That is a logical problem. In order to believe matter is uncaused, one has to discard the known laws and principles of science.

again false. scenarios such as ekpyrosis have a potential origin for the energy in the energy dispersed from colliding branes.

The atheist's assertion that matter is eternal is wrong.

your assertion that atheists assert that matter is eternal is wrong.

The atheist's assertion that the universe is uncaused and self existing is also incorrect.

your assertion that the atheists assert that the universe is uncaused and self existing is closer to the mark. But then Ekpyrosis and no boundary proposals do not need a start.

The Bible's assertion that there was a beginning which was caused is supported strongly by the available scientific evidence.

again wrong. you are overstretching the General Relativity and pushing your claims into a quantum space where GR breaks down.

THE DESIGN

If we know that the creation had a beginning and we know that the beginning was caused, there is one last question for us to answer. What was the cause?

well again, you are working from an incorrect base here.

The Bible tells us that God was the cause. We are further told that the God who did the causing did so with planning and reason and logic. The atheist, on the other hand, says that we are the product of chance.

only partially. we are the result of the way the universe works.

The subject of design has been one that has been explored in many different ways. Modern-day scientists are raising elaborate objections to the use of chance in explaining natural phenomena.

such as?

A principle of modern science has emerged in the 1980s called "the anthropic principle." This says that chance is simply not a valid mechanism to explain the atom or life. If chance is not valid, we are forced to reject atheist claims and believe that we are the product of an intelligent God.

[/center]

depends on how you word the anthropic principle. all it really states in the weak form is, take the fact that we exist, then everything that we see must be such that it allows our existance.

your post is replete with misrepresentations of the atheist position. I hope you can correct these misconceptions in future.

 

[Jet Black]

Of course, the other explanation is that species don’t have a common ancestor. A common designer, who used different arrangements of similar or identical components to create different kinds of organisms, designed them. This is in perfect agreement with molecular observations.

I have trimmed the rest and will present some pertinent issues to you. why would a common designer include useless retrovirus insertions in multiple species in a pattern that is consistent with common ancestry? Retroviruses are a type of virus that write their code into the genome of the organism they infect using a protein known as reverse transcriptase. sometimes this process goes wrong, and the viral DNA is cripples once it is entered into the DNA. as a result of genetic drift, the retrovirus may become fixed within the population (that is, present in all members of the population) and so clearly if this species then diverges into 2 new species, both species will have the retroviral insertion. the broken retrovirus may then mutate further since it is selectively neutral, and these mutations accumulate. again the pattern of accumulated mutations agrees with the ancestral patterns.

table of retroviral ancestry:

and also retrogenes

Pseudogenes are genes which have been broken, made useless and are selectively neutral. the broken forms, like the retroviruses can spread through the entire population. again pseudogenes form an ancestral pattern consistent with evolutionary theory.

Chromosomes can be abalysed by their banding patterns and can be arranged into the karyotype of an organism. mutations such as translocations, insertions, deletions and inversions can rearrange these banding patterns and result in variations within the population and may become fixed as in the cases of ERVs and Pseudogenes. analysis of banding patterns again agrees with evolutionary ancestral models.

Chromosomes consist normally of three parts, a telomere, on the ends of the chromosomes, which is a highly conserced sequence, the pretelomeres just inside them, which are highly variable, and in the centre, the centromere, which holds all the genes and other DNA. Chimps and the other great apes have 48 chromosomes, but humans only have 46. an analysis of human chromosome 2 shows that it is in fact 2 merged great ape chromosomes, the banding patterns are essentially identical. what is more, when we look at human chromosome 2, we see:

telomere-pretelomere-centromere-inverted pretelomere-inverted telomere-telomere-pretelomere-centromere-inverted pretelomere-inverted telomere

just as we would expect to see if two chromosomes had fused in an ancestral group to the humans after the human-chimp split.

here is a comparison of chromosome 2 in humans, chimps gorillas and orang utan

and here are human and chimp karyotypes

I will stop here, but similar phylogenetic analyses can be carried out in different species, and we can also include transposons, LINES, SINES and so on. I cover this in more detail here:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=10751034&postcount=9

 

[Jet Black]

A cell would not really be "alive" or survive unless all life functions became operable at once, so how did even a "simple" single-celled organism "evolve"?

strictuly no they aren't all required at once. many of them can be carried out by simple diffusion and so on. as for the respiration, the earliest "lifeforms" would have been simple replicating chemicals. essentially their entire life process would have been to replicate.

The DNA of a single E. coli bacteria cell contains about 10,000,000,000,000 bits of information. That's ten times the number of letters in all the books of the world's largest library.
[/center]

whare do you get that number from? even human DNA only has 3,000,000,000 bases to it. and human DNA is ALOT longer than E-Coli DNA.

Does evolution theory offer any evidence or even a truly plausible explanation as to how even a single bacteria cell came into being?

no, but then evolution is a biogenic theory which assumes the existence of life. your quarrel here is with abiogenesis, not evoution.

 

[Jet Black]

I commend you for your effort, and I can see you have put alot of work into these essays, however they are full of errors to be honest, and my concern is for what your sources are.

When researching these arguments, do you actually check up both sides of the issue to ensure that the information is correct? It seems that quite alot of the time you are repeating misconceptions, such as what atheists think, or bad information, such as the amount of information in E-Coli by a really significant margin.

 

[eternal_flame_1988]

Unanswerable Questions for Evolutionists

1. Evolution requires transition periods between two creatures. Natural Selection is supposed to retain the animals that have developed an advantage to their environment. How could the intermediate creature survive when it is not well suited to either its old or new environment?

2. How can evolution explain metamorphosis? How can evolution explain the complicated math calculations involved in bird migration or the gravity fall and water diffraction calculations of archerfish in shooting down their prey? How does evolution explain 'instinct' which is intact without learning?

3. Why aren't there any Fossils that support evolution? Why does the fossil record show a deluge?

4. What about symbiosis? Example: Algae and the Fungus of Lichen. The fungi provide vital protection and moisture to algae while the algae nourish the fungi with photosynthetic nutrients that keep them alive. "Neither population could exist without the other, and hence the size of each is determined by that of the other”. Neither of them could of survived without the other... so which came first, the Fungi or the Algae? If evolution were true, then both of these organisms would of evolved separately. But... neither could of survived without the other.


We could not live without the helpful bacteria in our bodies. So which came first... our bodies, which can't live without the bacteria, or the bacteria, which cannot live outside our bodies? How could two organisms evolve separately from different ancestors and yet depend on each other for existence?

5. The Earth's magnetic field is decaying so fast that the earth could not be more than 10,000 years old. How then could the earth be 6,000,000,000 years old?


6. Why don't we see evolution happening today? How can evolution explain love or altruistic acts that in no way help it to survive?

​

 

[Non-Sequitur]

Don't plagarize.

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/Mansproof.html
http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/QuestionsEvolutionistscantanswer.html
http://evolutionoftruth.com/evo/evocmplx.htm
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v6i6f.htm

 

[Jet Black]

Unanswerable Questions for Evolutionists

1. Evolution requires transition periods between two creatures. Natural Selection is supposed to retain the animals that have developed an advantage to their environment. How could the intermediate creature survive when it is not well suited to either its old or new environment?
​

Evolution does not suggest that such a thing even happens. Environments do not change instantly, but fairly gradually, and if the organism has the capacity and fortune to have variation that is advantageous in that environment, then it evolves in that environment.

2. How can evolution explain metamorphosis? How can evolution explain the complicated math calculations involved in bird migration or the gravity fall and water diffraction calculations of archerfish in shooting down their prey? How does evolution explain 'instinct' which is intact without learning?

it doesn't need to, because nature does not bother with mathematical calculations, and uses trial and improvement. we can see that performance of mathematical calculations is not nescassary from neural net programs.

3. Why aren't there any Fossils that support evolution?

there are, why do you claim that there are none? what do you know about the fossil record, for example,therapsids, archosaurs, tetrapods and so on?

Why does the fossil record show a deluge?

it doesn't. the idea that a global deluge was responsible for all of geology was falsified in the 1850s.

4. What about symbiosis? Example: Algae and the Fungus of Lichen. The fungi provide vital protection and moisture to algae while the algae nourish the fungi with photosynthetic nutrients that keep them alive. "Neither population could exist without the other, and hence the size of each is determined by that of the other”. Neither of them could of survived without the other... so which came first, the Fungi or the Algae? If evolution were true, then both of these organisms would of evolved separately. But... neither could of survived without the other.

they co evolved. look at it this way. as you have pointed out, the fungi stp the algae from dessicating. One could imagine a scenario where the algae previously were in the water (as were fungi in the water) and some of them were deposited on a riverbank or shoreline, where it is a bit dry sometimes, but not too bad to kill the bacteria in their totality. those bacteria that were hardiest because of mutations would see their numbers increase along the drier areas, and so on, along drier and drier areas. however with the fungus there, there was another option. fungus that happened to be growing in areas where the algae were would survive better because the algae were providing food, and the algae would be more likely to survive because there happened to be fungus growing over them, extending the range of both. those fungi and algae which secreted chemicals which aided each other would do even better still, and symbiosis ensues. not that hard really.

We could not live without the helpful bacteria in our bodies. So which came first... our bodies, which can't live without the bacteria, or the bacteria, which cannot live outside our bodies? How could two organisms evolve separately from different ancestors and yet depend on each other for existence?

you have to remember that the evolution of the intestinal tract dates right back to the earliest wormlike ancestors, where such complex gut flora is not required. I already went over co-evolution. it is not that hard.

5. The Earth's magnetic field is decaying so fast that the earth could not be more than 10,000 years old. How then could the earth be 6,000,000,000 years old?

because the calculations that the magnetic field is decaying exponentially are wrong so your conculsion is wrong. They were based on an extremely simple model treating the earth as a hollow conducting sphere. The Magnetic field is actually powered by Nuclear Fission and the energy released by the crystallizing iron core, and hence the field is perfectly fine thanks. your sources have lied to you.

6. Why don't we see evolution happening today?

we do.

How can evolution explain love or altruistic acts that in no way help it to survive?

​

love and altrusitic acts result in the survival of relatives in what is known as kin selection, which was explained elegantly using game theory by Hamilton and Maynard Smith about three decades ago.

 

[Jet Black]

Don't plagarize.

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/Mansproof.html
http://www.geocities.com/davidjayjordan/QuestionsEvolutionistscantanswer.html
http://evolutionoftruth.com/evo/evocmplx.htm

you mean I typed out all that stuff thinking she had written those articles? aww heck that's annoying

 

[Jet Black]

I like the line from Non-Sequitur's second site:

The sun burns by gravitational contraction and thus must be young

crikey, have these people never heard of fusion? that argument is from Kelvin, and is over a hundred years old!

 

[h2whoa]

Oh no. Didn't this thread die? Let it rot in peace.

h2

 

[Dracil]

Yeah, I thought this was supposed to be from her essay as well. Tsk tsk.

Just a little helpful note, not citing sources on this particular forum breaks a rule.

BTW, you really shouldn't be quoting from David Jay Jordan. I've argued with him before on another forum. Nothing short of a lunatic there (believes the moon landings are faked, and various other conspiracy theories).

 

[h2whoa]

(believes the moon landings are faked, and various other conspiracy theories).

Yeah everyone knows that not believing the moonlandings were real is a crackpot theory. I mean if they didn't go to the Moon, how would the evil atheistic communist astronauts have managed to fire the bullet through the magical moon timewarp, in order to assassinate Kennedy?

h2

 

[DJ_Ghost]

This brief study is to offer logical, practical and sensible proof of the existence of God from a purely scientific perspective.

I am afraid you can’t. God is, by nature metaphysical and science does not deal in metaphysics. You can offer a logical argument by all means, but because you are trying to include the metaphysical it isn’t a scientific one. That does not mean science is anti-God, it is mute. it is mute on all metaphysical questions, it has to be because of its limitations.

Ghost

 

[Arikay]

"Does God Exist." I've debated over e-mail with the creator of that site. In it he likes to claim that the big bang proves the atheists claim of a steady state universe false, thus God exists. He found it acceptable to quote a 70 year old document (the humanist manifesto I) as the position of not just humanists but all atheists today, and Fred Hoyle as a leading humanist mind on the big bang.

 

[ForsakeAll2FollowJesus]

(George Caylor, interview with a molecular biologist -- identified as "J" -- "The Biologist," Febr. 17, 2000, in The [Lynchburg, VA] Ledger ).

J says -. . . To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold onto two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures -- everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living.

Caylor says-I hate to say it, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.

J says-The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind's worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the elephant in the living room.

 

[Arikay]

Ok, a supporter of creationism interviews an anonymous scientist who believes in design. He "knows" evolution is not true, yet he would rather earn a living in molecular biology than win a nobel prize. He has also decided to speak for his entire profession.

Wow, you are really scraping the barrel for quotes.
I don't even think Bevets would use this.

 

[aeroz19]

And there you have it, folks: the failure of modern education.

Well, you live in Australia.

*hides*

 

[Jet Black]

Ok, a supporter of creationism interviews an anonymous scientist who believes in design. He "knows" evolution is not true, yet he would rather earn a living in molecular biology than win a nobel prize. He has also decided to speak for his entire profession.

Wow, you are really scraping the barrel for quotes.
I don't even think Bevets would use this.

aah, but you see the fact that he did not reveal himself proves the quote is true because the qote says that he cannot reveal himself without losing his job. clever eh?

 

[Arikay]

Clever indeed.
Reading it again, it almost sounds like this scientists profession is creationism or Intelligent Design and he does genetic research as well.