• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

The best evidence against Evolution

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,103
52,639
Guam
✟5,147,317.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Basic doctrine belongs in the General Theology forums. We discuss science here.
Trying to separate the wheat from the chaff, are you?

Getting a wake-up call on how science and theology can't just be arbitrarily dismissed?
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
So, if I nailed it on biological alchemy, what is your opinion of regular old alchemy? Is/was alchemy a legitimate branch of science?
No - alchemy was a philosophy and a system of magic, not science. Turning lead to gold through chemistry is what most people think of, but it was must vaster than that. We can actually can transmutate lead to gold through nuclear fusion, but this isn't alchemy.

Your analogy, while apt, could have been called 'biological geology' or 'biological astrology' - the alchemy part is largely irrelevant.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,103
52,639
Guam
✟5,147,317.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
No - alchemy was a philosophy and a system of magic, not science.
Alchemy was never considered a science?

Shouldn't alchemy work in theory?
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Alchemy was never considered a science?
Not to my knowledge. There's this myth that it's the precursor to modern chemistry, but that's as erroneous as the myth that people thought the world was flat before Christopher Columbus.

EDIT: That is, alchemy isn't to chemistry what classical mechanics is to quantum mechanics. Alchemy helped kickstart chemistry, and did yield some results, but it wasn't a science, and chemistry didn't come directly from it.

Shouldn't alchemy work in theory?
Nope - chemistry alone can't cause lead to become gold. The other posits of alchemy involve magic and esoteric mysticism, which don't work either.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Norman321

Member
May 18, 2012
393
5
✟564.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Norman, let's not forget that the article says that there has been "hundreds of millions of mutations" and only a half dozen or so were considered beneficial, yet it is still Ecoli. Still E-coli after hundreds of millions of mutations. Still E-coli after hundreds of millions of mutations over 50,000 generations.
Exactly, the evidence does not support what they say their theory can do. It is sort of like trying to use a Tonka toy to do real construction work. You can move some dirt with a Toy, but no where near enough to get the job done.
tonkadd.jpg
 
Upvote 0
G

good brother

Guest
Exactly, the evidence does not support what they say their theory can do. It is sort of like trying to use a Tonka toy to do real construction work. You can move some dirt with a Toy, but no where near enough to get the job done.
tonkadd.jpg

Well said, my friend, well said.

GB

P.S. I had one of those when I was a kid, it was awesome! And for the record I did move some dirt with it, but not as much as they claim it can move.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,103
52,639
Guam
✟5,147,317.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Exactly, the evidence does not support what they say their theory can do. It is sort of like trying to use a Tonka toy to do real construction work. You can move some dirt with a Toy, but no where near enough to get the job done.
tonkadd.jpg
Good analogy! :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
Exactly, the evidence does not support what they say their theory can do. It is sort of like trying to use a Tonka toy to do real construction work. You can move some dirt with a Toy, but no where near enough to get the job done.
tonkadd.jpg

Is this an argument gleaned from that "cutting edge" research that you mentioned earlier? I think you will get the respect you deserve, coming up with gems like this.

What was the name of that book again?
 
Upvote 0

Norman321

Member
May 18, 2012
393
5
✟564.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Is this an argument gleaned from that "cutting edge" research that you mentioned earlier?
Is this your best attempt to defend your theory and what you believe? Cutting edge research includes science daily. Do you have a problem with Science Daily? There is no conflict between Science and the Bible. Science can not falsify the Bible in any way. May people come to a saving knowledge of the truth by failing in their attempt to prove the Bible wrong. They come to the realization that the Bible is true.
 
Upvote 0

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟32,475.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Is this your best attempt to defend your theory and what you believe? Cutting edge research includes science daily. Do you have a problem with Science Daily? There is no conflict between Science and the Bible. Science can not falsify the Bible in any way. May people come to a saving knowledge of the truth by failing in their attempt to prove the Bible wrong. They come to the realization that the Bible is true.
If you put science versus religion then you are asking for trouble. It will be an unfair contest simply because science will demand empirical evidence that the supernatural cannot possible give. while the supernatural cannot refute the empirical evidences brought forth by science.

You cannot dismiss one part of applied science while accepting another. Biology and hence medicine will make no sense without ToE; Thus you cannot accept the help of the medical profession while at the same time dismissing ToE.

This is tantamount to hypocrisy. Science does not pick and choose what it likes. It [science] has to conform to strict rules.

An example of what you are doing is: I accept there is God but dismiss that Jesus existed. I accept there is Heaven but refuse to accept there is Hell. I believe angels exist but refuse to accept angels exist. The Bible teaches us to worship Satan! Preposterous?; Yes absolutely. So why are you doing the same to science?
 
Upvote 0

Norman321

Member
May 18, 2012
393
5
✟564.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
If you put science versus religion then you are asking for trouble.
Not at all. Lots of the Bible can be shown to be true using science. Lots of people have come to a saving knowledge of the truth by trying to prove the Bible wrong. They discover that the Bible is accurate and true. Most people do not have a problem abiding in the truth. That is why most people accept Science and the Bible. The Bible has a time honored tradition of being true for a very long time now. It's man's traditions we have to watch out for. Be it science or religion.
 
Upvote 0

Norman321

Member
May 18, 2012
393
5
✟564.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
you cannot accept the help of the medical profession while at the same time dismissing ToE.
The medical profession has no help for me. So I am not missing out on anything. We tell people to get everything you can from man and science. Then when they have nothing else to offer you, Go to God to receive Help from On High.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,833
7,856
65
Massachusetts
✟393,841.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Norman, let's not forget that the article says that there has been "hundreds of millions of mutations" and only a half dozen or so were considered beneficial, yet it is still Ecoli. Still E-coli after hundreds of millions of mutations.
Why do you find this surprising?

Pop quiz: roughly how long has it taken for 100 million mutations to occur in the human population?

a) 1 million years
b) 100,000 years
c) 10,000 years
d) 1000 years
e) 100 years
f) 10 years
g) 1 year
h) since last Sunday

Have humans remained humans during that period?
Still E-coli after hundreds of millions of mutations over 50,000 generations. I don't know if the evos are reading this post Norm, but I gotta think that little piece of knowledge has them worried. I mean, the fact that over the course of 50,000 generations and hundreds of millions of mutations, the fact that they still have E-coli in their petri dishes has got to have their precious theory in a tizzy.
I dare say you do think that "evos" are worried about these results. That fact alone is good evidence that you know too little about evolutionary biology to be commenting on it.
Let's think about that for a moment. Norm, six beneficial mutations out of hundreds of millions mutations... what is that statistically? Like 0.000000000000something% success rate? I bet they didn't look at it like that. What do you think?
Your numbers are a bit off. Lenski et al. estimated they'd seen ~20 beneficial mutations in one (out of 12) of their lines in just 20,000 generations. Since only a small fraction of beneficial mutations fix, the total number that had occurred must have been much higher, anywhere from thousands to tens or even hundreds of thousands, out of roughly tens of millions total mutations. So the actual fraction of mutations that were beneficial was probably somewhere between .01% and 1%. Hardly a shocking number.

Let's look at another aspect of that test. Let's say that those 50,000 generations were people instead of E-coli. Assuming the average human generation is between twenty and thirty years, that would mean the very average is twentyfive. 25x50,000 = 1,250,000. That little test would represent 1.25 million years in humans if it were carried over from E-coli to humans. We know that after 50,000 generations and hundreds of millions of mutations, that the E-coli is still E-coli, that would mean that humans would still be humans 1.25 million years ago. But wait! "Modern humans" are supposed to have only arrived on the scene 200,000 years ago.
You do realize that species designations in bacteria are pretty arbitrary, don't you? The E. coli in this experiment changed quite a lot more than humans have over the last 1+ million years. They completely changed their diet, increased their mutation rate by a factor of 70, and doubled in size (volume). Meanwhile, in 1 million years humans have gotten a little thinner, increased their brain size modestly and, well, that's about it.
 
Upvote 0

Norman321

Member
May 18, 2012
393
5
✟564.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Meanwhile, in 1 million years humans have gotten a little thinner, increased their brain size modestly and, well, that's about it.
So humanity has not much changed in the last 1 million years?

Matthew 23:24. Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
 
Upvote 0

mzungu

INVICTUS
Dec 17, 2010
7,162
250
Earth!
✟32,475.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The medical profession has no help for me. So I am not missing out on anything. We tell people to get everything you can from man and science. Then when they have nothing else to offer you, Go to God to receive Help from On High.
Do you have children? If your child was seriously ill or it was involved in a serious life threatening accident; Do you mean to tell me you will forgo Medical treatment and just pray for its recovery?

Jesus once said: "Hypocrites and Pharisees". How right he was.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,833
7,856
65
Massachusetts
✟393,841.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
So humanity has not much changed in the last 1 million years?
Not compared to the bacteria in this experiment, no. If you think they have, argue the case. Also, argue the case that hundreds of millions of mutations are a lot for an entire population. You were making a big deal out of that.
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
Is this your best attempt to defend your theory and what you believe?
Put up a defence against your ineffectual Tonka-toy comment? Why would one bother?
Cutting edge research includes science daily. Do you have a problem with Science Daily?
Is that where you found the Tonka-toy comment?

No, but I was asking about the book you were reading. Is the Tao of Physics "cutting edge"?
There is no conflict between Science and the Bible. Science can not falsify the Bible in any way.
I take that to mean there is nothing of scientific significance in the bible. Do understand the importance of falsifiability?
May people come to a saving knowledge of the truth by failing in their attempt to prove the Bible wrong. They come to the realization that the Bible is true.
And like yourself, just not in any way that they can demonstrate.

As we are in a sciences sub-forum, the burden of evidence is on you.

Do you actually have anything of significance that might falsify the theory of evolution?
 
Upvote 0

NailsII

Life-long student of biological science
Jul 25, 2007
1,690
48
UK
✟17,147.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
In response to the OP, a pesky little thing called genetic limitations. Examples:

A horse and a donkey can be bred..... once. The outcome is a sterile crossbreed. The females are almost always sterile and the male is ALWAYS sterile. There will never be a reproducing population of horse/donkey mixes. This is the end of their genetic limitation.

Dogs and foxes cannot interbreed.

Many creatures that would seem to be very close anotomcally, cannot mingle. There are genetic limitations.

Of course, to the evolutionist, a cow can eventually become a whale over "long periods of time" and somehow that's "scientific", but what we see in the real world is that there are limitations on how far an animal can actually go.
You are of course looking at this backwards (no suprises there then).
The genetic limitation you speak of is an incompatability caused by genetic changes in isolated populations.
When you have some evidence for a 'genetic limitation' caused by an 'intelligent designer' then maybe you should educate us.
Until then, i suggest you should learn some biology before you comment on it.

You start with ecoli you end up with ecoli. No new species has been found, created or discovered. Even after 50,000 generations. You can have descent, you can have modification. There is no descent with modification.
This can so easily be disproved, you could do it yourself.
Get a DNA testing kit, take a sample from you and either a parent or one of your offspring.
Send it off to the lab.
The will be able to show that the child has descended form the parent, yet is not identical. To be fair, you could make an approximation of this just by using your eyes - you look like your parents, but not exactly the same.
Therefore, you have - wait for it - descent with modification.
In one generation of a sexully reproducing organism.
Otherwise, we would all be clones....
Evos become good at ignoring the evidence. Because the evidence clearly shows their theory is bogus. You can have modification, you can have descent. But you can not put the two of them together and come up with anything.
Show us the evidence to back up your erroneous claim then.
The new heaven and the new earth will have lots of precious metals and stones.
And I am supposed to belive this why exactly?

Is this your best attempt to defend your theory and what you believe? Cutting edge research includes science daily. Do you have a problem with Science Daily? There is no conflict between Science and the Bible. Science can not falsify the Bible in any way. May people come to a saving knowledge of the truth by failing in their attempt to prove the Bible wrong. They come to the realization that the Bible is true.
The bible tells us that we can move mountains with faith.
Science tells us we cannot.
Faith tells you there is a god - common sense should tell you that you don't need one.
 
Upvote 0