- October 11, 2011 at 12:49 am #15498
I began with a discussion on the engines which drive evolution. The one fact which prevailed in that discussion was the impossibility, near impossibility, of a positive mutation (the probability is so near that it is practically impossible). Now I will simply list several well known and accepted facts which do not allow the theory of evolution to exist. To continue on the point of mutations which drive the theory of evolution, I will begin there. This will be a wealth of information. It is perfectly alright if, in your responses, that you discuss the points I have presented here one by one, listing the point number in some sort of way.
1)The Structure of Protons in the Nucleus
Protons, being of like charge, naturally repel each other. Speeds needed for nuclear fusion does not occur naturally in nature. We attempt to produce nuclear fusion, and even then, the process is not 100% efficient (during the process, protons bounce off of each other). Everything that is alive contains carbon. Period. Carbon has 6 protons. Those protons are held together by nuclear forces, which attract protons to each other when they are extremely close. Any one micrometer farther apart, and the protons split. How can, with repelling protons and with the lack of naturally occurring nuclear fusion, carbon have formed? In addition, how can anything with an atomic number (atomic number=number of protons) of 2 or higher have formed? The answer to this question is that it is frankly impossible.
Big bang attempts to explain this. However, this is simply what big bang sais: nothing took itself, and made something from nothing. The big bang theory sais that a tremendous explosion began the universe. Where did those things which the explosion was composed of came from? And if from something else where did they come from? The eventuality is that it same from nothing, or that it appeared from nowhere. Everything has a source. Things dont appear from nothing, explode, and cause the universe to expand and heat, then cool, then randomly form the earth. This, in simple common sense terms, is impossible.
2)The Age of the Sun (Russian Sun Study and Earth’s Magnetic Field)
For the theory of evolution to be possible, the sun had to have existed throughout the duration of the evolutionary time scale. Life as we know it could not have developed or exist without the sun in tow. A study was done on the sun by Russian scientists. Based on the sun’s rate of nuclear fusion, the Russian scientists found the sun to be 10,000-30,000 years old.
Also supporting young age is the strength of the earth’s magnetic field. Scientists have found that the magnetic field is reducing in strength at a rapid rate, with a half life of about 1,400 years. If that rate is reversed, the strength of the earth’s magnetic field 20,000 years ago would be that of a magnetic star. This supports Earth’s young age, as appose to evolution’s over estimation.
This science is above all the most convincing. As you can see in the chart of population growth, the human population stays relatividly stable until there is an excessive amount of exponential growth. According to evolution, humans appeared 200,000 years ago, and the modern human 40,000 years ago. The application of population growth rate has been estimated at 2%, yet it has been shown to be 1%. Every 82 years, one-third of the population is wiped out by disease, war, etc. If these rules are applied, over the course of 41,000 years, according to the observed science of population statistics, there would be 2×10^89 humans in existence today. In other words, 200000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. The current population is 6900000. There is not enough room on earth to hold this many bodies.
This is not conjecture. This is a science of population statistics. Evolution does not conform to this.
4)McFall & Taylor Trail Footprints
These two trails have both dinosaur and human foot prints. For one, dinosaurs are, according to evolution millions of years old. These fossils should be underground to coordinate with the evolutionary time scale. However, the very fact that these fossils are on the surface is cause for disproof. Also, there is one particular footprint which has a human footprint inside of a dinosaur footprint. This shows that humans and dinosaurs existed recently and in the same period, which evolution is quite contradictory to.
Lysosome contain enzymes that are used to break down material and get it ready for disposal. All of these enzymes work best at a low pH, reducing the risk that these enzymes will digest the very cell they are contained in should they somehow escape from the lysosome. Keep in mind that the pH of water, from which all life spring from (according to evolution) has a pH of 7. The cell could not house these enzymes without the membrane. The conundrum of getting the enzymes inside of the membrane, or the membrane around the enzymes, or the membrane evolving, then the enzyme getting on the inside, or the enzyme evolving, then the membrane around it, is a very far stretched possibility. This is so far stretched, that it is impossible.
If the enzymes develop before the membrane, the membrane would be broken down by enzymes from the outside. If the membrane evolves before the enzymes, either the membrane is already closed and is consumed by the enzyme or the enzyme develops inside the membrane, at which point would contain water instead of cell fluid. The membrane, at that point, would be consumed from the inside out because of pH.
7)The Digestive System
If we were to take away the bile lining our digestive system, the stomach acid would burn through the cell lining, and thus leak into the rest of the body, and be detrimental to survival. The process of evolution takes billion of years. An unprotected cell, if dropped in this acid, would be instantly killed. Early cells that might try to contain this acid or who merely come in contact with this acid will be instantly killed. This instant kill leaves no time to adapt. A cell cannot adapt to something it does not come in regular contact with. Just one contact is enough to kill the cell. Furthermore, our stomach acid is weak when compared to other animals, such as vultures.
Also, this is an issue similar to lysosome and their enzymes. Stomach acid would not be able to be contained. Evolution cannot explain how stomach acid ended up in the first stomach.
8)The Probability of Cell Development
A cell, at minimum, has 60,000 proteins of which there are 100 different configurations. There are, on top of this, very complex cells and an enumeration of cell types. The chance of the random, unorchestrated assembly of a cell is 1 in 104,478,296. This is so far stretched, that it is practically impossible.
If I were debating mutation like I was in my last piece, you could find a way around my arguments. We both evolutionist and creationists would have been debating conjectures on how evolution would compensate for difficulties in generating positive adaptations. However, most of these are either facts or a science, not conjecture. There is no way to conjecture around these. Maybe, possibly, you could provide a far stretched explanation for lysosome and the digestive system because it is your arena on development of the organism. You might also debate your way around the big band explanation. However, the rest are facts and science that evolution cannot get around, and they are facts which make evolution an impossibility. However, if you do have observed facts that contradict what is above, please elaborate on these facts.
- October 11, 2011 at 1:55 am #106795
The man in sunglasses is actually the number 8. I do not understand how this came to be this way.
Also, in reference to population statistics, the figure of 2×10^89 is derived from starting from just beginning with just 2 humans modern day humans and continuing procreation from 41,000 years ago to present day (as I already said, 41,000 is derived from the theory of evolution, which sais that the modern human appeared 40,000 years ago.
- October 11, 2011 at 2:24 am #106796canalonParticipant
For the 8 ) becoming a man in sunglasses, it is because you have BBcode (the forum formatting language) activated. And it is interpreted thusly (I put a space in mine to avoid that0, you can also create a 😀 by typing :_D without the underscore. Or you could uncheck BBcode when you type your message.
To go to your post:
1) Nothing to do with evolution, just with basic physics. Well we have a problem here, because it is quite off topic.
2)So there is one study that says that. What about all the other that disagree?
3) You understand that humans are not bacteria. Mating are not binary fission. And, I know that this will come as a shock, they do mate with people they are related to. A quick look on any of the genealogic tree of a European royal family would show you some interesting things… But beware it is hardcore.
4) irrefutable, eh?
5) Nice grasp of things like protein migration, signaling, and cell biology in general.
6) Truly I have no word about that one. But not convinced by a certain … hmmmm… lack of argumentation, shall I say.
7) gradual modifications, does that mean anything to you? I suppose not.
8- Impressive use of meaning less statistics. Evolution is NOT a series of independent events.
- October 11, 2011 at 5:23 pm #106815
First of all, this has nothing to do with biology, but never minds.
Second, you have obviously huge gaps not only in biology, but also in chemistry and other sciences. I’m just curious, where is the level of education so bad? And I thought that the education in Czech Rep is already so bad.
I know it makes no sense to reply to you, since you will not accept any new data, but for the case someone else would read it, here are some comments.
1) You’re wrong, that there is no fusion in nature, just look into stars. The heavier atoms are formed in supernovas. And BTW big bang has nothing to do with this.
2) where did you get that?
3) 7 millions of people on Earth? Even Czech Republic has more citizens 😀
4) this one again?
5) what exactly is the reason, why membrane could not be first?
How does it work in bacteria?
6) this one is nice 😀
7) the same as 5
8) nearly impossible, that’s all, what you can say…
- October 11, 2011 at 8:20 pm #106824
1)It has everything to do with it. There have to be atoms before there can be a chemical revolution. The big bang nor evolution offers plausible theories for this.
2)If there are studies that you know about which disagree, I would appreciate if you could name them or the scientists instead of just saying that there are experiments that disagree.
3)Yes, people mate with people they are related to. We call it "kissing cousins". In Europe, they are called bloods. Also, i know that humans do not mate by binary fission. None of this is shocking to me. What exactly are you trying to say?
Again, population statistics is a science, not conjecture. 1% growth, every 82 years 1/3 dies, and if you being with 2 modern humans from 41,000 years ago (evolution sais the modern human appeared 40,000 years ago; this obviously means they are using todays system of mating, which is procreation through sexual intercourse), then you will end up with 2×10^89 in todays population. Thats 2 with 89 zeros behind it. Todays population has only 7 digits. There is not enough space on earth for this many bodies.
I would say show me the facts or the science, but there is only one science of population statistics, and evolution is impossible because it contradicts that science.
4)The tracks are human. The site admits that here are toe marks, and a cup in the heel like human footprint should be. There are human footprints in that area.
Also, evolution sais that dinosaurs existed 230 mill to 65 mill years ago. Therefore, these prints should be under the ground. Just the very fact that these prints are on the surfact disproves evolution.
5)It seems this is a fact you cannot get around.
6)There is no no. 6 is there? funny.
7)I said "However, if you do have observed facts that contradict what is above, please elaborate on these facts." Instead, I received a smart remark.
Both of use are still left with the fact that evolution occurs over millions of years. How can the cell adapt to something, with bile production, that kills it instantly? The answer to this is that it is impossible. Acid works instantly to burn through the body if it is not contained in the stomach. Early stomachs could not have developed with the issue of obtaining stomach acid.
8)Ah, but you see, it is. How does one event in evolution influences another? If one organism was unable to obtain stomach acid, how does this affect the next organism? Its not like they connect telepathically and exchange why they were not able to do so. Genetics in one organism are isolated from the next organism, and they do not communicate and help correct each other. Where there is a difficulty, such as the lysosome and the stomach acid, all organisms are affected by this. The individual must evolve to pass on a gene with a complete digestive system. The collective of early organisms do not evolve in close proximity and thus effect each other’s ability to overcome these difficulties. Obviously, the individual cannot spontaneously evolve this because stomach acid, if not contained, burns through the body.
Evolution is a mass of conjectures, not observed facts or events. You obviously conjecture that evolution is an interconnected event because it favors your theory.
This statistic is fact. It shows that the possibility of cell development by random, unorchestrated chemical revolution is so low, that its practically impossible. So instead of showing an experiment where this was replicated, or presenting solid facts which show that it is possible, you call the statistic meaningless.
- October 11, 2011 at 9:01 pm #106827
1)In reference to the stars, this is true.
Let me rephrase this: nuclear fusion does not occur naturally on Earth.
Also, to canalon: you obviously could not face the fact and conjecture your way around it. This fact does not allow carbon and other elements to form. Therefore, you simply state that this is off subject.
2)I read it 2 years ago on http://www.biologynews.net. The study was published in a prominent science journal in England. I forgot the name and simpy retained the fact ofthe age of the sun. I have searched for it again and have not been able to find it, especially considering I forgot the name of the science journal and it was 2 years ago.
3)Obviously, I put 7 million instead of 6.9 billion. Instead of focusing on the mistake, I would appreciate if you could focus on the science of population statistics and the fact that evolution simply isnt viable considering the date oof our appearance. The number again is 2×10^89 people after 41,000 years of procreation via sexual reproduction, 1% growth rate, and a 1/3 death every 82 years (these numbers are derived from the proven, observed science of population statistics).
Keep in mind that you can put the general topic in google, and many results appear which only deal with this subject. Also, canalon made the argument that these prints arent human, even though there are toe marks and the cup of the heel is present. However, even if they are not toe marks, and they are dinosaur footprints, the very fact that dinosaur foot prints are on the surface shows that they existed recently. Also, they should be deep in the earth because of evolution’s geological time scale.
These footprints disprove evolution.
5)If the membrane comes first, then the enzyme cannot enter into the membrane. There is one very far out way this is possible, and that is for the membrane to capture a part of the chemical sludge so that the enzymes may evolve within the membrane. This is a far stretched impossibility. Also, the enzymes operate best at low pH. The cell, being that it "evolved" in the sea, would have captured water, which has a pH of 7. This would allow the enzymes to digest the membrane which is supposed to contain them.
Bacteria is a separate issue that I am not debating, and must look into. Right now, I am presenting the modern day presence of lysosome, which evolution cannot explain how it got into the cell or membrane.
6)Again, I messed up on the numbering. funny.
7)Again, cells in the stomach are adapted to stomach acid through bile production. How did a cell, that would be instantly killed by stomach acid, have a gradual genetic adaptation? The cell would be dead before it can even begin to "evolve".
8)I think I need to iterate something: the possibility is 1 in 104,478,296. This percentage possibility is 0.000000009% possibility. There is a thing about probability: if it is stretched to the point of 0.000000009%, it is practically impossible. 1 in 104,478,296 does not mean that 1 in every 104,478,296 events, the cell will develop. This means that for each event, it has a 1 in 104,478,296 chance, or a 0.0000000009% chance of evolving. This makes the cell evolution practically impossible.
- October 11, 2011 at 9:07 pm #106828
canalon & Jackbean:
No. 1,3,4,5,7, & 8 are facts that you simply cannot get around.
I am waiting for a response on number 2.
5 & 7 are in you realm of conjecture and biological development. Therefore, for whatever problems arise in the development, you simply conjecture around them instead of facing the stretched probability to the point of impossibility. My point of possibility is made in 8, where the chance for each event, which is individual, is 1 in 104,478,296 or 0.000000009%. This is, again, a statistic you cannot compensate for or conjecture around.
The science of population statistics, dinosaur footprints on the surface, the formation of elements with a atomic number of 2 or above, the young age of the sun (waiting for a response), the practical impossibility of the random, unorchestrated combination of chemicals that bring about life, and the reversed rate of deterioration of the earth’s magnetic field showing earth’s young age (unmentioned by either of you).
The cell probability, earth’s magnetic field, & population statistics is taken from http://22.214.171.124/~creatio1/index.ph … view&id=36
Obviously, I had to get it from a creationist site because evolutionists would never talk about the earth’s magnetic field on a website, much less in person (evolutionists tend to turn away when I mention the population statistics and magnetic field) because it disproves the theory.
- October 12, 2011 at 8:14 pm #106850
However, if you are able to find evidence disproving these facts, I would appreciate if you could present them.
- October 13, 2011 at 12:07 pm #106870quote Tomn:
You obviously don’t know, how planets formed. Interesting, that you care only about the carbon, but other even heavier elements don’t bother you.quote Tomn:
I see. So you want from us perfect citations about hings, which are in every textbook, but you cannot find single citation about such radical thing as sun being 40k years old.quote Tomn:
As canalon told you, we are not bacteria. I don’t understand much to your numbers in the first post. However, I would say the finnal number depends on the original population size 😉quote Tomn:
Your lack of knowledge is phenomenal. Study geology first, before you make such strong statements.
http://www.earthsci.unimelb.edu.au/Thom … nge07.html
http://www.geology.ohio-state.edu/~vonf … index.html
Canalon was right, you have no clue about protein trafficking and stuff. Bacteria is much relevant, because if they are ancestors of eukaryotes, then you should look them up, whether they have lysosome-like organels. Of course, we know that bacteria do not have membrane-bound organelles, but their plasmamembrane makes infolding, which may lead to membrane-enclosed organelles.quote Tomn:
At least, I know now, where you have this number from. Just for curiosity, how does 1 in 104,478,296 transform into 0.000000009%?
You think you say that something is "practically impossible" and that’s enough for rejecting evolution, but it’s not. You should consider (although I know you won’t) there are (usually) millions of individuals of each species thus the chance is not that low.
- October 14, 2011 at 6:29 pm #106891TimTruettParticipant
1) Nuclear fusion does occur in nature. It happens at the center of any star. The first stars contained only hydorogen and a little helium. Nuclear fusion in stars builds up heavier elements. Nuclear fusion has been directly studied in the laboratory, so we understand it in great detail.
Large massive stars quickly fuse nuclei at a quick rate, and relatively quickly will explode as a supernova. The explosion does two things. It generates elements heavier than iron, and it disperses material out into the cosmos away from the supernova. That is, it puts heavy elements out into space.
Later, other stars and planets will form from the interstellar gas that now has heavier elements in it. Every atom of heavy elements (such as carbon, iron, gold, etc.) was formed either at the center of a star in its normal lifetime, or in its explosion as a supernova.
Fred Hoyle worked this out in detail in the 1950s.
2) Even the first estimates of the age of the Sun by Lord Kelvin in the 19th century (before nuclear fusion was know) gave an estimate bigger than 30000 years.
The Earth’s magnetic field varies all the time. You can’t extraploate indefinitely from a short-term trend. The mechansim of the Earth’s magnetic field is fairly well understood. It has been investigated with numerical simulations on a computer, and it has been investigated experimentally laboratory-scale models.
4) I have seen fossilized dinosaur footprints. I have not seen any fossilized human footprints. If you look at enough rocks or mud, you can find any shape you want. I saw a potato chip that looked exactly like Bob Hope.
There is a lava flow on Mars that looks like Kermit the frog. That doesn’t mean anything either.
8) This one is more interesting. There is no "unorchestrated assembly". Calculating probablilities for "unorchestraed assembly" is meaningless because the assembly of atoms into molecules, and molecules into larger systems, happens according to the laws of physics and chemistry. The configurations the atoms and molecules can take are highly constrained by the laws of nature. Molecules don’t form randonly. They form as a result of the working out of the principles of chemistry.
- October 14, 2011 at 11:07 pm #106892
1)I especially emphasize carbon because it is necessary to life. However, I did mention "The science of population statistics, dinosaur footprints on the surface, the formation of elements with a atomic number of 2 or above . . ."
I admit I did mention this on the side, but I am also concerned with the formation of any element with an atomic number of 2 or more (the atomic number is equal to the number of protons). You point the fact that I did not emphasize this as if its an argument of some sort, but its not. You just accentuated how much more difficult it is for this universe to form.
You said "You obviously don’t know, how planets formed."
Its not that I dont know. Its just that I dont say the same thing that you say, which I am assuming is the big bang. If you want to thoroughly debate this, I will be talking the big band in the big bang string on a thread. However, I will elaborate on this one point: there is a halo ring of radiation in granite. The radiation disappears almost instantly when the rock is heated. The big bang states that the earth was formed by the earth beginning as a heated mass which cooled over time. However, granite today can be found with this radiation in it.
2)I never ask for perfect citation. I only ask for the name of the experiment or experimenter or both or a link. I only ask for this when you guys say something like "There are plenty of experiments that show the suns age is 3.5 billion years old." Only when you just say something without naming an example or link or experimenter or experiment name. And when new information is presented, I ask for an explanation right here in the forum. Not for some citation.
And it was you who I argued with about sickle cell anemia as a positive mutation.Never did I ask for a link on this. Also, it was you who dropped out of the conversation because im "improbable". However, yo dropped out because you could only present your conjecture but could not provide viable explanation that I could not find a problem with.
Furthermore, in the first place, this has nothing to do with the argument. You are just trying to make me out to be hypocritical. I would appreciate if we could debate the facts.
3)I’m going to explain it again. The science of population statistics sais that every 82 years, 1/3 of the population dies from war, disease, etc. and that there is a 1% population growth rate throughout history although it is said to be 2. Evolution sais that the modern human appeared 40,000 years ago. STARTING WITH 2 modern day humans 41,000 years ago, with a 1% population growth and 1/3 die every 82 years, and the humans, being that that they’re modern day, are utilizing procreation through sexual reproduction. The population, when grown from just 2 humans, and when the proven and observed rules of population statistics are applied, the population today would be 2×10^89, or 2 with 89 zeros behind it.
Again, these numbers are derived from population statistics. Population statistics is a science that is entirely based on observation and the direct replication of what we see today and in history. You could easily look up population statistics in google, and the science of population statistics would be the same regardless of where you find it.
4)I know what geological folding is. I know how geology works, and I know that the evolutionist excuse for this inconsistency is that earth quakes cause some layers to arise to the topsoil, which is essentially because tectonic plates shift up, down, converge, diverge, and crash to create mountains. I know about tectonics and geology. I know that this could cause fossils to be misplaced.
Yes earthquakes can cause displacement of fossils, but the real question is has this occurred in the Taylor and McFall trails? Obviously, if this hasnt occurred there, then how could it be applied to this situation? Because if it has not occurred there, then it does not apply.
5)You said "Bacteria is much relevant, because if they are ancestors of eukaryotes,"
With evolution, things get more complex. It is the other way around. Bacteria, which is more simple, came before eukaryotes.
Again, I am debating LYSOSOME, NOT BACTERIA! I would appreciate if I could get an explanation on how evolution sais how this impossible thing happened. Obviously, I think this is impossible by evolution because these enzymes and the membrane evolve separately. The question is how did one get inside the other? I am asking for an explanation, and neither you nor evolution has given one. I am still asking for an explanation.
6)If I were to say that the chance is 1 out of 4, its the same as 1/4. When 1 is divided by 4, you get the percent, which is 25%. When you divide 1 by 104,478,296, you get 9.571 e-9, which is 9×10^-9, or 0.000000009%.
I think you need to look at what Im talking about. The probability of CELL FORMATION. The probability of cells developing from a chemical slosh, which is what evolution sais the first cells came from.
I appreciate the debate, but I would like that you should reframe from insult. I could have long ago called you ignorant because of your incorrect english, but this is not kind, it is not nice, it is not good. I do not see what makes it right for yo to do so.
- October 15, 2011 at 4:14 am #106894aptitudeParticipant
Must… not… feed… troll… but the temptation is so strong…quote Tomn:
Nuclear fusion. What’s so complicated about it?quote Tomn:
So how exactly are you calculating this? There seem to be several mathematical errors and incorrect assumptions here. If there is a 1% population growth rate and "1/3 die every 82 years", how does your equation work? Even more seriously, from where are you getting these statistics? Using modern-day growth rates, or historical records?
Why is it that your signature demands "facts, observed events, plausible explanations, and solid evidence", yet these seem to be nearly always absent from your posts?quote Tomn:
I don’t know enough about this topic, so I will not comment on this.quote Tomn:
This is such a simple question, yet when others have provided correct answers and even elaborated them greatly when asked to do so, you still do not seem to understand? What, do you think you know more than all the others on this forum?
I will explain again: this is not an issue of evolution, but rather protein kinesis. Lysosomes are buddings of the Golgi apparatus, and lysosomal enzymes are trafficked from the Golgi to the budding lysosome.quote Tomn:
Please stop pulling statistics out of nowhere. Are you trying to prove the improbability of the formation of double-membrane-enclosed structures? If so, then I would consider that it is not difficult to do so. If you drop phospholipids into water, it will spontaneously associate into double-membrane structures called liposomes. Fox proposed a mechanism for the formation of protobionts from liposomes.
- October 17, 2011 at 4:25 pm #106966quote aptitude:
Tell me about that 😆 😆 😆 😈 😡
- October 21, 2011 at 10:56 pm #107099
Please excuse my absence. I had a overload of studying, and thus I had to divert my time unto those things. This might happen in the future, and I will respond as much as I can. Now . . .
1) Its not that nuclear fusion is complicated. Its not that I dont understand nuclear fusion. I will re-explain the argument with some additives: There is a force called nuclear forces. When protons are a few micrometers apart, they stick to each other. Protons, other than nuclear forces, bounce off of each other and do not join together in the environment outside of stars. So the pointed question that neither evolution nor big bang can explain is how did, if nuclear forces cannot be established, outside of stars, then how did anything with atomic number of 2 or more form? The answer I hear is that stars release these elements. However, stars use both hydrogen and helium in their reactions. Helium has 2 protons. Therefore, it would have had to form before stars did. How did higher elements form?
Big bang explains this in an invalid way by saying that nothing took itself and turned itself into something. This is neither viable not sensible. Also, this is proven by the radiation that is in granite
2) The 1% population growth has been observed throughout history. Even today, the population growth is 1.25%.
There are not my numbers. Let me explain again. Population statistics is an OBSERVED science, not conjecture. It is an APPLIED science, a science of numbers that can be applied and observed in the population of the world. The science of populations statistics sais, not I say, not creationists say, the science sais that these several rules apply to the growth of the population in the world:
1-a historical growth rate of 1%
2-1/3 of the population dies every 82 years from disease, war, natural deaths, etc.
3-ALL humans procreates by sexual reproduction
I did not personally perform the calculations. However, when this is applied to 2 modern day humans that "appeared" 40,000 (41,000 years was used), with 1% growth and 1/3 dies every 82 years, then this leads to a population of 2×10^89. Or, basically, when this rule is applied for 41,000 years, which is the supposed appearance of the modern man, then today’s population should be 2×10^89.
Again, the source is http://126.96.36.199/~creatio1/index.ph … view&id=36
This is the argument from the site:
"4. Population Statistics…World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah’s day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 10^89. The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies."
And the site’s source (pasted from site) 9 See Morris, Henry, Scientific Creationism (El Cajon, CA: Master Books)
However, I will begin applying some calculations and tell you my results. I think we will both find them interesting. I think that the calculations will be very long and require explanation, and could take on a conversation all its own. I will post it in a new thread when I finish.
3) I do not know about protein kinesis, buddings of golgi apparatus, and the issue of golgi transporting lysosomal enzymes. I would appreciate if you could elaborate on this.
4) The source for this statistic is
http://188.8.131.52/~creatio1/index.ph … view&id=36
And his source is Mastropaolo, Joseph, "Evolution Is Biologically Impossible," Impact # 317 (El Cajon, CA: Institute For Creation Research,1999) p. 4
- October 27, 2011 at 10:44 pm #107377
I was hoping this page would generate more debate considering its provoking title. Also, I use simple facts that anyone can debate. However, it has been a week, and these facts are still upheld.
I wish to have more debate in the subject.
Also, I have not had any time in the recent days to perform those population statistics calculations. However, I have made some previous progress and I am continuing to work towards completing them.
- October 27, 2011 at 11:36 pm #107378quote Tomn:
This is a science forum. People come here to ask questions or to discuss scientific ideas. We easily tire of trying to deal with unabashed ignorance and idolatry. Sorry, but we cannot take you seriously.
- October 28, 2011 at 2:15 am #107390
Since this level that I am on is so full of "unabashed ignorance and idolatry", you pick the topic. Pick the subject within evolution which shows proof for the theory, post the thread, and I will debate you there.
- October 28, 2011 at 2:24 am #107392
Tomm: You cannot distinguish between fact and fiction, do not listen to reason, and have a closed mind. These traits do not go far in science. The internet has no lack of forums that would be a better fit for you. This is a science forum, and you are not a scientist and are not interested in science. You do not belong here. I don’t want to be rude, but if you think you can convince anyone that the presentation of your beliefs can refute the wealth of scientific evidence, you are mistaken. So please, do yourself and us a favour, and either acquire some education or take your beliefs elsewhere.
- October 28, 2011 at 3:10 am #107395
You would think that if your theory was so proven, and there was so much evidence, you would debate the facts I have presented instead of an attempt to belittle me, my opinion, my intelligence, and to shut down the debate.
My challenge still stands. You know the evidence which is proof for your theory. Make the thread or threads. We can even take it one topic at a time.
- October 28, 2011 at 3:13 am #107396
I talk to my dad frequently on these things, and he has told me to say this on his own accord:
"As a former evolutionist, I can see you are doing the very same thing that I did, which is running from the facts and not facing the truth. I challenge you to debate any evolutionary science any time."
- October 28, 2011 at 3:15 am #107397
Tomm: Don’t confuse stupidity with ignorance. Stupidity means lack of intelligence. Ignorance means lack of knowledge. There are plenty of intelligent people who are ignorant about something or other. I, for example, am a complete ignoramus about anything that has to do with money. Lack of interest, I suppose. I have no idea how stupid or intelligent you are. All I know is that you are lacking in scientific education and the ability to think for yourself. No one has proof of anything outside of mathematics, only evidence in support of something or another. Science is about evidence. You just do not belong here. Sorry.
- October 28, 2011 at 3:46 am #107398
I do have evidence against evolution, and it is there in this thread.
This I have heard from other people about evolutionists, and now I have experienced it for myself: evolutionists try to shut down the debate. You still try to say I dont belong here.
You are still trying to insult my scientific knowledge. If the scientific knowledge I have is so low, and you are so educated in terms of science, debate the facts.
You say that "No one has proof of anything outside of mathematics, only evidence in support of something or another. Science is about evidence." Population statistics heavily involves math. The number of 2×10^89 is the result of the mathematic simulation of population growth. Yet when I talk about population statistics and use it to disprove evolution, its wrong.
If I can recall correctly, the purpose of this forum is to debate facts. You still have not presented not one piece of scientific evidence for evolution and for debate.
Who is the true ignoramus here?
And what qualifies you to be here?
My offer still stands, and so does my fathers. Debate the facts bro. Your thread. Your "evidence". If you have it, present it. If it is so solid and viable, put it up on a thread.
- October 28, 2011 at 3:50 am #107399
Here’s a rock. I think I’ll just bash my head against it.
- October 28, 2011 at 3:57 am #107400
Go ahead and bash your head bro.
Still not evidence.
- October 28, 2011 at 10:00 am #107411zephidelParticipant
I’m no expert with regards to this (I’m a programmer btw), but i do understand in a nutshell how our universe works.
So maybe let’s answer your question one at a time and feel free to reply back.
Regarding your first question as to how elements of more than 2 protons have been formed, the answer is not Big Bang actually. They are formed from stars, through nuclear fusion.
You see, nuclear fusion only works under extremely high temperatures (thus overcoming the repulsive force between any nuclei), and the closer the star is on its demise (supernova) the hotter it gets (thus making fusion of heavier elements possible).
So the direct answer to 1 is nuclear fusion, which are being done in the stars.
Now if you are really eager to learn how nuclear fusion works, just google it or pick any nuclear physics book.
- October 29, 2011 at 1:27 pm #107419wpseofriendlyParticipantquote zephidel:
Supernova, the fate that all start must face…
- November 3, 2011 at 11:12 pm #107598AlwaysrushedParticipant
What in the world is Irrefutable?
I think of it more of a spectrum: From weak argument to strong argument.
- November 4, 2011 at 9:12 pm #107619
If that how you want to think about that way, fine. Im not your boss, and I dont tell you how to think.
But my thing with evolution is that it does not line up with basic, well known, observed facts of the universe. This is why I am displaying facts rather that conjecturing on how possible or impossible it is for such and such a species could not have formed, because all evolutionists ever do is just conjecture its possibility. The facts are well known. There not going anywhere.
It is simply impossible for the theory of evolution to hold up against well known, observed facts that it does not agree with, or rather, are disproved by.
- November 4, 2011 at 9:36 pm #107620
What I mean by irrefutable is that if I walk into any science class, creationist or evolutionist, they will agree with nuclear forces, the decline in earth’s magnetic field strength, etc. They are commonly accepted facts, and evolution does not line up with it, and as a result, it is disproven. The thing about evolution is that it has to line up with every area of science it touches, and it dos not, thus, it is not possible or viable.
- November 5, 2011 at 1:42 am #107624quote Tomn:
OK, I’ll grant you that.
- November 6, 2011 at 12:39 am #107658
When did I say that?
I did sayquote Tomn:
So you want to play the game that way? Taking things out of context. Wow. Shows just what kind of person you are. What gaul. What lack of integrity.
Quit your childish games. Debate and facts have place, not incivility.
Debate or go home.
- November 6, 2011 at 12:53 am #107660
- November 6, 2011 at 1:45 am #107664
Well, in reference to that video,
1) The first man is not even a scientist. He is a man making a assumption. He has no evidence of the 5 minute claim, and he really should have look up other evidence for the flood, such as the Austin Chalk.
You of all people who ignore facts.
2)This young man, instead of assuming that there is no water in our solar system other than Earth, should have looked it up. He would have easily found out that water was found on mars.
However, he should have said that that water has been in a frozen state, which is not enough for life to exist on mars. Also, he should have said that the temperature conditions on mars do not allow life to exist.
3)Again with the water. He should have looked it up.
4)This man who narrates this video is simply making things technical. Of course earths orbit is not a circle, but an ellipse. However, this still does not refute the fact that we are in just the right place for liquid water to exist.
5)The evolutionists narrator sais that the creationist failed to mention that 37% is the real distance that he is talking about. 37% is 50 billion meters, as stated in the movie. Well keep in mind that 50 billion meters=80 million miles. The creationists was not talking about moving earth back that distance, but merely 5% of our current distance. Oh, and 80 million miles is 86 percent of our current distance, not 37%. 5% of our current distance is 4.6 million miles, which is plenty to begin either overheating or freezing.
Obviously, this young man did not pay attention in earth space science class in high school.
This is only one creationists. You are stereotyping creationists and assuming my intelligence level as low just because I disagree with you.
Who is the true ignoramus: the man who ignores facts or the man who hasnt researched them in depth?
Obviously, there is more hope for someone who is willing to be educated rather than someone who has plenty of knowledge and yet ignores facts which disproves evolution.
Offer still stands. Post the evidence. If your evidence for the theory of evolution is so solid, then post it in a thread.
So you post the same thing three times, and you think I wont read it the first time? Bro go somewhere with your intimidating tactics. They wont work on me.
Instead of laughing and insulting, you should debate with and educate that young man.
- November 6, 2011 at 1:55 am #107667
I don’t like to ridicule people, but you creationists make it very difficult and really don’t deserve anything more. I also pity you, though. Your parents must have been real Bible thumpers. I can’t imagine what it must be like to live in the kind of world you live in. You’re missing out on so much, and this is the only life you will ever have. Repent (open your mind), before it’s too late. Your beliefs are shared by a tiny, tiny, tiny (very tiny) fraction of the world’s population. Is this not evidence that you and your ilk might – just might – be mistaken?
- November 6, 2011 at 2:03 am #107671
Again, you post the same thing multiple times.
You dont really acknowledge creationists?
At least I dont ignore facts.
You must be chicken or something. I recall you claiming that there is evidence for the theory of evolution. You gonna post it or what?
- November 6, 2011 at 2:11 am #107672
Tomm, as I’ve said to you before, you do not belong here. This is a science forum. You are not a scientist, nor are you interested in science. We often get people here who do not know very much, but we welcome them because they want to learn. You do not want to learn. You are not welcome here. You just want to annoy. No creationist has yet won a debate against a scientist. There’s a reason for that. Dawkins, though, explained why he refused to debate creationists:
You, of course, think that Dawkins is an idiot. What are your credentials?
Most of the people here (maybe not Scottie) just wish you would go away and stop infecting this forum with your nonsense.
- November 6, 2011 at 3:33 am #107682
I never said Dawkins is an idiot. Stop putting words in my mouth.
Bro, you speak for yourself, not everyone else. No one else made you their speaker.
Debate the facts bro. That is the purpose of this forum. You are trying to stop the debate and intimidate me off of this forum. Im not going anywhere. If its anyone who needs to go, its you who keeps trying to insult people.
Go eat some pie or something.
I would appreciate you could be true to your word, and go bash your head against a rock.
- November 6, 2011 at 3:51 am #107689
I would appreciate if debate could return to this thread. Does ANYONE want to debate facts here?
- November 6, 2011 at 3:54 am #107694
As I and others have said, debate with ignorant people is futile and not worth our time.
- November 6, 2011 at 3:58 am #107698
Go eat pie.
Why are you even here then? If its pointless to debate, you should just get out.
You dont belong in a forum designed for debate.
- November 6, 2011 at 4:28 am #107717
What’s this stuff about pie? Does eating pie represent something bad for creationists? Pie is good, isn’t it? OK, I’m not too crazy about rhubarb pie.
- November 6, 2011 at 7:47 am #107719quote Tomn:
You realize, that the circle is quite interesting, because it would mean, that we move these 5% closer and 5% futher from sun? So we should burn and freeze twice a year 😉
Can you explain more your math?
- November 7, 2011 at 8:37 pm #107783
It really isnt something I’m soming up with, but a response to Gavin’s video.
Basically, our present path around the sun aides in the passage of seasons. As we know, the path is elliptical and, at both far ends of the ellipse, we move farther away from the sun. However, this is not what I am referring to.
I will make myself clear with this: If the shape of our current path were expanded or contracted 5%, then we would either freeze or overheat.
I must admit this: I should look up the figure, if there is any, to see if mine compares. I was merely using this as a rebuttal to Gavin’s video. In the video, the (presumed) evolutionist is insulting a creationist on his estimate in saying that if we move 5%, we would either burn or freeze. The evolutionists responded to this by saying that the reality of the creationists distance was 35%, or 50 billion meters. He essentially sais that 50 billion meters is 35% of our distance from the sun. 50 billion meters=80 million miles. Our distance from the sun is 92 million miles. 80 million miles is far above the 35%, and far above the distance this planet would need to move in order to overheat or freeze.
As a comparison, I offered the 5% creationists estimate in the video, which was 4.6 million miles. The 5% is not my math, but the one from the video. I was simply bringing clarification where the evolutionist had his math wrong and misinterpreted the 5%.
- November 7, 2011 at 9:19 pm #107789quote Tomn:
Tomm, your conversion from the metric went the wrong way. 50 billion metres is about 31 million miles, which is about ⅓ the distance to the sun. By "habitable zone", scientists mean habitable for life, not specifically human life. Bacteria have been found living in hot springs and Antarctic ice.
- November 7, 2011 at 9:47 pm #107791
Tomn, you do not hesitate to lie about such easily findable thing?
The distance of Earth from Sun differs in accordance to where Earth is, but let’s say, it is about 150 000 000 km far away. (I write it fully because of the confusion between American and British billion) How much of it is 35%? The answer is here. How much is it? Ah, yeah, about 50 000 000 km AKA 50 billions meters.
- November 8, 2011 at 2:18 am #107807aptitudeParticipant
In addition to what Jackbean has already said:
First of all, the distance between the Earth and Sun has been changing over time: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090331021903AAGTAqk
Second of all, to say that all conditions are perfect for life to exist on Earth is a selection bias. If conditions were not so, then either we wouldn’t be around to make such a statement, or life could have evolved to adapt to these conditions. From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle): "Critics argue in favor of a weak anthropic principle (WAP) similar to the one defined by Brandon Carter (see variants), which states that the universe’s ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias, i.e. in the long term, only survivors can observe and report their location in time and space".
- January 21, 2013 at 11:01 pm #113419AhsmeahParticipant
First I want to start off by reminding you that evolution and Darwinism are two different things, even though Darwinism is based off of evolving. It seemed to me when I was reading your replies, that you may not remember that. I also need to remind you, that evolution is the conclusion of almost all scientific data, and has basically been used to "prove" other theories wrong. No, evolution is not proven, it is based on scientific research. You cannot base a drawing on a tree, and then say that the tree is proof that your drawing exists.. if you get my drift? So technically, Tomn, your attempts to scientifically disprove evolution are in vain, and I say that as a fellow christian. Simply accept that the way to view evolution, is as conclusion of data, and not as a theory people may use to disprove your religion. Thank you for fighting so hard, but really you’re just fighting in vain. Must I remind you you’re in a thread full of scientists, teachers and experts? You cannot disprove science with science. Don’t try it again, alright? The "theory" of evolution adapts, it is not one solid theory. It is based off of (most likely) thousands of other theories.. So even if you disprove a single theory, you still have four thousand, nine hundred and ninety-nine more to go.
Sources? No sources, but look this information up yourself.
-14 year old kid
- February 22, 2014 at 10:43 pm #115077MerandaParticipant
Why Does Ancient Art Contain Depictions Of Flying Aircraft, Helicopters And Dinosaurs?
http://thetruthwins.com/archives/why-do … -dinosaurs
Fact Check: Did Bill Nye Tell A Huge Lie About The Fossil Layers?
http://thetruthwins.com/archives/fact-c … sil-layers
Does A Belief In Evolution Lead To Racism?
http://thetruthwins.com/archives/does-a … -to-racism
44 Reasons Why Evolution Is Just A Fairy Tale For Adults
http://thetruthwins.com/archives/44-rea … for-adults
HERE ARE JUST 12 POINTS THAT ARE EXTRA ORDINARY- That Show the Bible is Accurate… Of the thousands of evidence, here is what I love the most………………
Either what JESUS said was false, and you can dismiss the information, OR, if he was telling the truth, there IS a HEAVEN or Hell waiting for us. God LOVED US all so much, Jesus suffered the eternal fire for us…
1. The Bible is Divinely inspired. It touches on an astounding remarkable amount evidence of History ,Science, Mathematics AND Medicine to the finest detail. It also has embedded Numeral Mathematics within the words, as well as THOUSANDS of Bible codes threaded within and throughout the BIBLE. (The Bible Codes and Mathematics only work in the original word of the Bible, not the modern translations) How can you possibly write a book (of 40 authors) that reads on the surface fluently, and has THOUSANDS of Modern Bible Codes, AND on top of that Multiple places of Mathematics present?
2. Jesus had to be born through a particular family line as it was prophecied in the Old Testiment. Jesus would have NO CONTROL over that. They have calculated the odds of that actually happening – 10 To the 2nd Power (1 in 10,000) Jesus would be a Descendant of David
3.Prophecy Tells US GOD Picked the City of Bethlehem for The Messiah to be Born in. Jesus would have No CONTROL over this. They calculated the odds of this – 10 to 5th Power (1 Chance in 100,000) Jesus would be born in Bethlehem
4.The Uniqueness of God is shown in his consistency. In everything he does, he wants to lead people TO HIM. For 1000 years followers of the holy Bible Scriptures came to Bethlehem and celebrated the Feast of Tabernacles. In Leviticus 23 it tells us those people, as well as many Chrstians today are to celebrate this festival in humble ways such as living in tents remembering what the deliverance of Gods people out of slavery in Egypt, in the exodus. AND ASTONISHINGLY, Faithful believers knew that their Messiah would be born DURING this festival in Bethlehem. They knew someday their messiah would be born during this festival. AND HE WAS!! It is amazing that Gods Festivals all SIGNIFY important events in history that show himself. Jesus will COME BACK on Feast of Trumpets some day. So we watch for that day at the Mount of Olives.
5. An astonishing 668 prophecies have been fulfilled and none have ever been proven false . An honest study of biblical prophecy will compellingly show the divine authorship of the Bible. Jesus fulfilled over 300 messianic prophecies written in the Old Testament scriptures. Prophecies have come to pass regarding events around the world. Isn’t that amazing?
6. There are 2,000 prophecies that discuss past events which have come to pass (proven correct), future prophecies and 300 prophecies (ALL proven correct and detailed) on the implications about the life, INCLUDING the death, and resurrection of Jesus. No other religion has specific, repeated, and unfailing fulfillment of predictions many years in advance of contingent events over which the predictor had no control.Buddha didn’t rise from the dead, nor did Confucius or Zoroaster. Muhammad didn’t fulfill detailed prophecy. Alexander the Great didn’t raise the dead or heal the sick. And though there is far less reliable information written about these "religious" leaders, they are believed in and followed by millions.
7. The Messiah would have had 456 identifying characteristics. Jesus had them all.
8.Professor Emeritus of Science at Westmont College, Peter Stoner, has calculated the probability of one man fulfilling the major prophecies made concerning the Messiah. Twelve different classes representing some 600-university students worked out the estimates. 1 in (10 157POWER) that one man could fulfill even 48 (F O U R T Y – e i g h t ) of these Old Testament prophecies.
JUST REMEMBER THAT JESUS FULLFILLED OVER 300! Finally, he submitted his figures for review to a committee of the American Scientific Affiliation. Upon examination, they verified that his calculations were dependable and accurate in regard to the scientific material presented (Peter Stoner, Science Speaks, Chicago: Moody Press, 1969, 4).
9. Jesus DID NOT manipulate events to fulfill prophecy Such as The Place of the Messiah’s birth (Micah 5:2). , The Date of the Messiah’s birth (Daniel 9:25). Manner of birth of the Messiah (Isaiah 7:14), The Manner of death of the Messiah (Zechariah 12:10; Psalm 22:16 prophesied before the invention of crucifixion). , Piercing in side of that Messiah (Zechariah 12:10).The Details of the Burial of the Messiah(Isaiah 53:9).Executers dividing up Jesus’s clothes after he died on the cross
10. MILLIONS of Muslims are seeing dreams of JESUS and ARE Converting to Christianity. It shows that Yeshua Jesus cares about ALL people, and wants NONE to parish.
11. AN EARTHQUAKE and an Eclipse Happened while Jesus was dying on the cross…Sited by MANY NON Biblical Sources (13 in total) It did HAPPEN! The darkness was noted all around the world! It happened from 12 noon to 3 pm when Jesus died.
12. The Holy Temple Had A Curtain Seperating the Holy Place where GOD dwelled. At the Very moment of Jesus’s Death the Curtain was torn in half. The Remarkable thing, CHECK out the measurments of this Curtain- The curtain was 60 feet in height, 30 feet in width and 4 inches thick
- February 22, 2014 at 10:49 pm #115078MerandaParticipant
Tomn , Fantastic thread! It just goes to show that evolution has so many holes. It is no wonder why many atheists and those who believe in evolution now are saying that aliens have created us. They CANNOT DENY the evidence for an intelligent creator, yet, they just don’t want Yahweh, so they resort to embracing the aliens….. The bible talks about this as the great deception.
John 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
Jeremiah 33:3 Call on me in prayer and I will answer you. I will show you great and mysterious things which you still do not know about.’
Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
Call to Yeshua Jesus!
- February 24, 2014 at 9:28 am #115083quote Meranda:
No, it’s actually this way – people who are racists look for any reasoning to make their believes approved. And Darwinism may provide such. But that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
If all the creatures were created by God with love, how so that the so religious US south used to be so racist? Where did the slavery hold the longest?quote Meranda:
I see, so the Bible is divinely inspired. How do you know? Because the Bible says so!!!
Show me the evidence for science and medicine? Where does it state that the heart pumps blood and that brain (at least in some people) is responsible for emotions and reasoning? Where does it say that plants and animals are composed of basically the same building blocks – cells. That those are further composed from proteins and lipinds and our hereditary information is in DNA. And all of this is composed of atoms. Which are actually not not indivisible as old Greeks (but not Christians) thought, but are composed of yet another sub-atomic particles? Where does it state anything about combustion engine?quote Meranda:
No, you have it actually wrong, the Christians are converting to Islam, just check the western Europe.
The rest is just such bullshit, it’s even hard to comment…
- March 13, 2014 at 12:55 am #115192wildfunguyParticipantquote Meranda:
I would be more impressed if God had done that for the native Africans or native Americans before any missionaries, crusaders, or emigrating Protestants had entered the picture.
- March 15, 2014 at 7:48 pm #115207CatParticipantquote Meranda:
You got it wrong! There is NO evidence of "an intelligent creator" just as there is NO evidence of microbe to human evolution. There is, however, abundant evidence that WE can create new species and WE can send them to other planets. Hence, we can extrapolate that there is a possibility that this was done to us in the past. The theory that LIFE is older than our planet is supported by math, not bible.
- March 15, 2014 at 8:02 pm #115208wildfunguyParticipantquote JackBean:
Exactly. They also used certain Bible verses to justify slavery. That doesn’t mean Christianity leads to racism, it just means there are racist Christians.
- July 7, 2015 at 11:07 pm #115735SapiensParticipantquote Tomn:
God did not do it, Gravity did it. Gravity in something as massive as a star, all of which are powered by nuclear fusion, so I guess that is, after all, a natural process.quote Tomn:
Russian science is often wrong being more political than scientific, but I would need an actual reference to such a claim to provide a detailed rebuttal.
The Earth’s magnetic field does not decay along a half-life curve, as radioactive elements do. It varies in complex and non periodic, cyclical ways, as we have demonstrated by sampling past magnetic fields as they were captured in the iron rich magma along the sides of mid ocean ridges, as the sea floor has spread.quote Tomn:
You have no understanding of population growth, it is not a constant as you have modeled it so your "rules" are wrong. There is a saying in science, "garbage in, garbage out."quote Tomn:
There are exposed outcroppings of rocks of almost every conceivable age, somewhere on earth. That is dependent upon the overlying rock and the weathering that it is exposed to.
There are no human footprints inside of dinosaur footprints except in the imaginations of some charlatans.quote Tomn:
This is know as the, "argument from irreducible complexity," and it has been debunked many, many times with respect to many, many structures. Each time a door is slammed in the creationists’ face (as it has been with respect to many structures and many metabolic pathways) they attempt to open another one, and the Evolutionists scurry about and slam it too, and the process goes on and on.
But the truth is, even if the Evolutionists can’t (for the moment) explain something, all that wins for the Creationists is the admission that the Evolutionists don’t know (yet). It not until the Creationists commit the intellectual fraud of making an argument from ignorance, that they can pretend to have taken some ground. But the reality is that even if something cannot, at this moment, be perfectly explained, that is not evidence that "Goddidit." That is only evidence that, perhaps, we don’t know (yet). “God of the Gaps” doesn’t cut it.
Michael Behe, the prominent Creationist, defines an "irreducibly complex form" as: "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
While surrounded by some fancy words and the language of science, this is nauht but his personal incredulity that the world could arise through naturalistic processes. Behe’s argument is no more advanced or "evolved" than William Paley’s "Watch Argument" which stated that since a watch looked created, it must have a creator. Essentially, Behe is stating "because I can’t see a natural explanation, Goddidit" – this ignores any possibility that a naturalistic explanation or evolutionary pathway will later be discovered.
It’s also quite telling that Behe never goes on to attempt to define "several" as a meaningful number, giving intelligent design a crucial untestability. It gives the creators infinite room to declare any number of things (that do not presently have an evolutionary explanation) "irreducibly complex", while at the same time denying the applicability to other structures with a known evolutionary history.
Biologist Björn Brembs suggests an alternative definition for irreducibly complexity: "A statement, fact or event so simple it cannot be simplified any further, but still too complex to be grasped by a creationist."
Although irreducible complexity is offered as evidence of creationism, this conclusion is questionable. Robustness is generally considered to indicate good design, not precariousness. Which parachute would you consider better designed – one which ceased to function if a single part was missing, or one which has a back-up ripcord? Irreducible complexity is at best evidence for crappy design and at worst an example of highly muddled thinking disguised as “common sense.”
That is why I now try to not address arguments from irreducible complexity and ignorance in the specific but rather dispose of the entire class of such foolishness in one swell foop.
Among the more famous early instances of an argument from "irreducible complexity" is the argument by Herbert Spencer that the huge antlers of the Irish Elk together with the other bodily structures needed to support them formed a combination that could not have arisen by natural selection alone (Robert J. Richards, Was Hitler a Darwinian?: Disputed Questions in the History of Evolutionary Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013, page 125).
Another obvious counterpoint is that irreducible complexity can easily be demonstrated in technology, and the Creationists’ arguments become utterly ludicrous when applied to a real process of design: e.g., a modern steel mill makes steel, but has vital components that are themselves made of steel. The Creationists’ claim, applied to this example, would be "a designer must have magically created the steel components of the first mill,” rather than imagine that perhaps the first steel was not made in a modern steel mill.
One way in which "Irreducibly complex" structures develop is via a process known as scaffolding, wherein a structure gains in complexity via duplication and mutation of parts, then parts are knocked out via mutations, leaving a structure with no direct linear development from the original, basic structure, much the way an arch is built. Other paths by which irreducibly complex structures may form include cooption of parts from other structures. Both of these can be seen in the case of the bacterial flagellum, which includes many parts taken from a secretory pump.
Another is "function shift" which can also explain how irreducibly complex structures can evolve. During evolution, a feature may shift from one function to another-a classic example is the feathers of a bird. They originally evolved in dinosaurs as a way to keep warm, but birds then evolved to use them for flight. Half a wing might not be useful for flying, but it will still keep you warm. Our arms are another example-they were originally legs, but evolved into arms when we became bipedal.
Additionally, to assert that something is irreducibly complex is to assert that none of the parts could have provided a benefit by themselves. The more parts there are, the more impressive it is that all of them developed; however, this also means that there are more possibilities that have to be eliminated. For instance, if someone claims that there are ten parts to a particular irreducibly complex structure, then there are ten different possibilities for which one developed first. If even just one of them has a use that we are unaware of, then the structure is not irreducibly complex.
With thanks to Rationalwikiquote Tomn:
See (6)quote Tomn:
See (6)quote Tomn:
The problem is not with with gradual (or even episodic) evolution; the problem is with the misapplication of “common sense” by fools and their tools and their invention of "facts". Your logic is fatally flawed and easily falsified in the both the specific and general case, as has been shown above.
- August 17, 2016 at 11:43 am #116067JayKochParticipant
The irrefutable facts against evolution are tremendous! However, evolution is not considered to be a series of independent events: http://bigpaperwriter.com/blog/creationism-vs-evolution-essay. I’m sure you will tell me your opinion concerning this fact!
- July 11, 2017 at 11:27 pm #116244GeniusIsDisruptiveParticipantquote Sapiens:
Well NO, it has NOT "been debunked many, many times." One prominent example that comes to mind is the claim by a Darwinist that a mousetrap without a trigger or a bar could be used for "a tie clip." (giggles from the crowd)
Usefulness, in the sense of survival and evolution, is functional. In fact, functionality is the sine qua non for evolution. Find for me ONE man in Manhattan who wears a broken mousetrap as a tie clip to his office, and I will pay you $10,000, provided that he does so seriously and not simply to conform to the ludicrous claim of the evolutionary biologist.quote :
Blood clotting is "simple"? Have you any idea of the series of events leading to blood clotting? To the motility of a flagellum?
Word games are simply more giggles by the Left which is enamoured of rhetoric.
Here is another such example:quote :
We "Evolutionists" (proper noun, please note) don’t know "for the moment," we certainly WILL know. On that you can be certain.
After all, we’ve only been doing this stuff since, oh, 1859.quote :
"Intellectual fraud" – "Evolutionists don’t know YET"! That intellectual fraud doesn’t "cut it."
No evidence is necessary that "Goddidit." Can’t you understand something so simple? If "Evolution" fails, and fail it does, else you would not incessantly speculate about everything you "don’t know for the moment," then it must be rejected. No "alternative" theory is necessary to abandon something which so clearly fails.
This Darwinism is your biological security blanket, and it cannot be taken from you without dire psychological consequences.
THAT is intellectual fraud of the highest order.
- July 11, 2017 at 11:35 pm #116245GeniusIsDisruptiveParticipant
After Seeing The Impossibility Of Evolution, These Scientists Made The Following Observations:
“To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity… Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which – a functional protein or gene – is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?" – Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, Maryland: Adler and Adler, 1985), pp. 328,342
"Evolution can be thought of as sort of a magical religion. Magic is simply an effect without a cause, or at least a competent cause. ‘Chance,’ ‘time,’ and ‘nature,’ are the small gods enshrined at evolutionary temples. Yet these gods cannot explain the origin of life. These gods are impotent. Thus, evolution is left without competent cause and is, therefore, only a magical explanation for the existence of life…" (Dr. Randy L. Wysong, instructor of human anatomy and physiology, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, pg. 418.)
"After chiding the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past." (Dr. Loren Eiseley, anthropologist, The Immense Journey, pg. 144.)
"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups." (Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist.)
"Evolution is a fairy tale for adults." (Dr. Paul LeMoine, one of the most prestigious scientists in the world)
"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." (Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research.)
"The evolution theory is purely the product of the imagination." (Dr. Ambrose Flemming, Pres. Philosophical Society of Great Britain)
"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research but purely the product of the imagination." (Albert Fleishman, professor of zoology & comparative anatomy at Erlangen University)
"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time we cry, "The emperor has no clothes." (Dr. Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute in Zurich.)
"The great cosmologic myth of the twentieth century." (Dr. Michael Denton, molecular biochemist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.)
"Nine tenths of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. This Museum is full of proof of the utter falsity of their view." (Dr. Ethredge, British Museum of Science.)
"We have now the remarkable spectacle that just when many scientific men are agreed that there is no part of the Darwinian system that is of any great influence, and that, as a whole, the theory is not only unproved, but impossible, the ignorant, half-educated masses have acquired the idea that it is to be accepted as a fundamental fact." (Dr. Thomas Dwight, famed professor at Harvard University)
"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question, "How did this ever happen?" (Dr. Sorren Luthrip, Swedish Embryologist)
"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based upon faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion….The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but irrational." (Dr. Louis T. More, professor of paleontology at Princeton University)
"Evolution is faith, a religion." (Dr. Louist T. More, professor of paleontology at Princeton University)
"Darwin’s theory of evolution is the last of the great nineteenth-century mystery religions. And as we speak it is now following Freudians and Marxism into the Nether regions, and I’m quite sure that Freud, Marx and Darwin are commiserating one with the other in the dark dungeon where discarded gods gather." (Dr. David Berlinski)
"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to "bend" their observations to fit in with it." (H.S. Lipson, Physicist Looks at Evolution, Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138)
"A time honored scientific tenet of faith." (Professor David Allbrook)
"Darwinism has become our culture’s official creation myth, protected by a priesthood as dogmatic as any religious curia." (Nancy Pearcey, Creation Mythology, pg. 23)
"When students of other sciences ask us what is now currently believed about the origin of species, we have no clear answer to give. Faith has given way to agnosticism. Meanwhile, though our faith in evolution stands unshaken we have no acceptable account of the origin of species." (Dr. William Bateson, great geneticist of Cambridge)
"Chance renders evolution impossible." (Dr. James Coppedge)
"It (evolution) is sustained largely by a propaganda campaign that relies on all the usual tricks of rhetorical persuasion: hidden assumptions, question-begging statements of what is at issue, terms that are vaguely defined and change their meaning in midargument, attacks of straw men, selective citation of evidence, and so on. The theory is also protected by its cultural importance. It is the officially sanctioned creation story to modern society, and publicly funded educational authorities spare no effort to persuade people to believe it." (Professor Phillip Johnson, "Objections Sustained: Subversive Essays on Evolution, Law and Culture," pg. 9)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.