Science Disproves Evolution

General discussion area for all topics not covered in the other forums.
Post Reply
User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 1799
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:52 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by Pahu »



Eighteen Factors Disproving Evolution



Evolution flunks the science test



Irreducible complexity—— Biochemists and microbiologists have discovered that the various components of every living creature in the world are so complicated and interrelated, that it could not function without every one of them. There is no way that some of the parts could have been added later.

Instantaneous complexity—— Each entire living creature had to be totally assembled instantly, in order for it to begin living. If this was not done, parts would decay before other parts were made. All aspects had to be there together, all at once.

Mathematically impossible—— Mathematicians have found that the likelihood of DNA, enzymes, amino acids, and proteins being randomly assembled by the chance methods offered by evolutionary theory is impossible.



SCIENCE VS EVOLUTION 28
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by Ahso! »

If I show you evidence to disprove anything here, will you believe it?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
littleCJelkton
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:57 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by littleCJelkton »

the proofs of god cant be disproven we went through this already and last I saw it ended with a banana and Monty Python
User avatar
M.A.S
Posts: 303
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 5:24 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by M.A.S »

There's no doubt, evolution can't be real.
I miss you Odie
User avatar
littleCJelkton
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:57 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by littleCJelkton »

I forgot to add a Pointed Stick and Gun
User avatar
Saint_
Posts: 3342
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:05 pm
Location: The Four Corners
Contact:

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by Saint_ »

Pahu;1346204 wrote:

Eighteen Factors Disproving Evolution


So what's your theory? We all just "popped" into existence a few thousand years ago? Earth was a barren rock for millions of years until we got here?

Dr. Spencer Wells has already proven without a doubt where the current version of humans originated through DNA tracking. Or do you dispute the existence of DNA too?

https://genographic.nationalgeographic. ... atlas.html

What's funny to me is that, although Evolution is as easy to see and as certain as Einstein's Theory of Relativity, there are still people that disbelieve it! I don't know why I'm amazed because people insisted the EARTH WAS FLAT for centuries after Columbus and others proved it wasn't.

Here's a compelling article on why Pahu is so afraid...

Evolution by natural selection, the central concept of the life's work of Charles Darwin, is a theory. It's a theory about the origin of adaptation, complexity, and diversity among Earth's living creatures. If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science, and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that it's "just" a theory. In the same sense, relativity as described by Albert Einstein is "just" a theory. The notion that Earth orbits around the sun rather than vice versa, offered by Copernicus in 1543, is a theory. Continental drift is a theory. The existence, structure, and dynamics of atoms? Atomic theory. Even electricity is a theoretical construct, involving electrons, which are tiny units of charged mass that no one has ever seen. Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact. That's what scientists mean when they talk about a theory: not a dreamy and unreliable speculation, but an explanatory statement that fits the evidence. They embrace such an explanation confidently but provisionally—taking it as their best available view of reality, at least until some severely conflicting data or some better explanation might come along.



The rest of us generally agree. We plug our televisions into little wall sockets, measure a year by the length of Earth's orbit, and in many other ways live our lives based on the trusted reality of those theories.



Evolutionary theory, though, is a bit different. It's such a dangerously wonderful and far-reaching view of life that some people find it unacceptable, despite the vast body of supporting evidence. As applied to our own species, Homo sapiens, it can seem more threatening still. Many fundamentalist Christians and ultra-orthodox Jews take alarm at the thought that human descent from earlier primates contradicts a strict reading of the Book of Genesis. Their discomfort is paralleled by Islamic creationists such as Harun Yahya, author of a recent volume titled The Evolution Deceit, who points to the six-day creation story in the Koran as literal truth and calls the theory of evolution "nothing but a deception imposed on us by the dominators of the world system." The late Srila Prabhupada, of the Hare Krishna movement, explained that God created "the 8,400,000 species of life from the very beginning," in order to establish multiple tiers of reincarnation for rising souls. Although souls ascend, the species themselves don't change, he insisted, dismissing "Darwin's nonsensical theory."



Other people too, not just scriptural literalists, remain unpersuaded about evolution. According to a Gallup poll drawn from more than a thousand telephone interviews conducted in February 2001, no less than 45 percent of responding U.S. adults agreed that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Evolution, by their lights, played no role in shaping us.



Only 37 percent of the polled Americans were satisfied with allowing room for both God and Darwin—that is, divine initiative to get things started, evolution as the creative means. (This view, according to more than one papal pronouncement, is compatible with Roman Catholic dogma.) Still fewer Americans, only 12 percent, believed that humans evolved from other life-forms without any involvement of a god.



The most startling thing about these poll numbers is not that so many Americans reject evolution, but that the statistical breakdown hasn't changed much in two decades. Gallup interviewers posed exactly the same choices in 1982, 1993, 1997, and 1999. The creationist conviction—that God alone, and not evolution, produced humans—has never drawn less than 44 percent. In other words, nearly half the American populace prefers to believe that Charles Darwin was wrong where it mattered most.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by K.Snyder »

Pahu;1346204 wrote:

Eighteen Factors Disproving Evolution



Evolution flunks the science test



Irreducible complexity—— Biochemists and microbiologists have discovered that the various components of every living creature in the world are so complicated and interrelated, that it could not function without every one of them. There is no way that some of the parts could have been added later.

Instantaneous complexity—— Each entire living creature had to be totally assembled instantly, in order for it to begin living. If this was not done, parts would decay before other parts were made. All aspects had to be there together, all at once.

Mathematically impossible—— Mathematicians have found that the likelihood of DNA, enzymes, amino acids, and proteins being randomly assembled by the chance methods offered by evolutionary theory is impossible.



SCIENCE VS EVOLUTION 28Evolution is an observation not an invention. Suggesting the latter places religious connotations behind future which is not only mathematically incorrect but incredibly ignorant.

Science is nothing more than theories that best fit the mathematical equations produced by divination, which is a word best used in the context of "evolution", a word you've blatantly murdered. You're comparing like causes against you're own personal belief system which no doubt sets you up to be correct, but sadly your premise is derived from lala land
Richard Bell
Posts: 1228
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 8:56 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by Richard Bell »

The OP is nothing but a few statements. No evidence, citations or research, no matter how spurious, is offered.

FAIL
User avatar
Saint_
Posts: 3342
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:05 pm
Location: The Four Corners
Contact:

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by Saint_ »

Isn't it absolutely fascinating that this guy's link states that "An extremely narrow range of conditions exists where life can exist, stars can form, and planets can revolve and orbit around the sun."

So these guys believe the stars can form, and that the Earth orbits the Sun, but not that life can evolve. That's like believing that cars can drive, but gasoline doesn't exist. LOL! :D
User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 1799
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:52 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by Pahu »



Extraterrestrial Life?



No verified form of life, which originated outside of earth has ever been observed. If life evolved on earth, one would expect that the elaborate experiments sent to the Moon and Mars might have detected at least simple forms of life (such as microbes) that differ in some respects from life on earth (a). [See “Is There Life in Outer Space?”

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Is There Life in Outer Space?



Mars Lander

Many people, including Carl Sagan, predicted the Viking Landers would find life on Mars. They reasoned that because life evolved on Earth, some form of life must have evolved on Mars. That prediction proved to be false. The arms of the Viking 1 Lander sampled Martian soil. Sophisticated tests on those samples did not find even a trace of life.



a. The widely publicized claims, made by NASA in 1996, to have found fossilized life in a meteorite from Mars are now largely dismissed. [See Richard A. Kerr, “Requiem for Life on Mars? Support for Microbes Fades,” Science, Vol. 282, 20 November 1998, pp. 1398–1400.]

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 12. Extraterrestrial Life?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
User avatar
LarsMac
Posts: 13701
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:11 pm
Location: on the open road
Contact:

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by LarsMac »

It would seem that Life is no so narrow, after all.

LINK
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by koan »

They've just found an organism that thrives in conditions thought to be impossible for life to survive so the search for aliens is taking on new parameters. :p

CTV British Columbia - Microbe that feeds off arsenic alters search for life - CTV News
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by koan »

LarsMac;1346284 wrote: It would seem that Life is no so narrow, after all.

LINK


koan;1346291 wrote: They've just found an organism that thrives in conditions thought to be impossible for life to survive so the search for aliens is taking on new parameters. :p

CTV British Columbia - Microbe that feeds off arsenic alters search for life - CTV News


If I'd clicked Lars' link or he'd summarized it, I'd have noticed it's the same thing.

Jinx!
yaaarrrgg
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:29 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by yaaarrrgg »

Pahu;1346204 wrote:

Eighteen Factors Disproving Evolution



Evolution flunks the science test



Irreducible complexity—— Biochemists and microbiologists have discovered that the various components of every living creature in the world are so complicated and interrelated, that it could not function without every one of them. There is no way that some of the parts could have been added later.

Instantaneous complexity—— Each entire living creature had to be totally assembled instantly, in order for it to begin living. If this was not done, parts would decay before other parts were made. All aspects had to be there together, all at once.

Mathematically impossible—— Mathematicians have found that the likelihood of DNA, enzymes, amino acids, and proteins being randomly assembled by the chance methods offered by evolutionary theory is impossible.



SCIENCE VS EVOLUTION 28


If you think something intelligent created the complexity in the Universe, you might consider what mechanism would to sustain that kind of intelligence. God might need at least one neuron (or equivalent) for every atom in the Universe to keep track of all these things. So, the mind of God is even more complex than the thing you are trying to explain. Seems this route of explanation is a not very fruitful. You've only created a bigger question than the one you tried to answer.
koan
Posts: 16817
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:00 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by koan »

All the existing arguments have been proven faulty logic. Let us know if you find something new.
User avatar
Saint_
Posts: 3342
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:05 pm
Location: The Four Corners
Contact:

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by Saint_ »

Yeah Pahu, you look out your window to a huge city of houses. Well it only stands to reason that there's only life in one house right?

Pfft.
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by OpenMind »

I looked, but I could not find a single qualification for any of the statements made in the OP.

However, how about some commonly known facts. Where else in this universe is there life? The chances of life evolving are improbable, but not impossible.

Furthermore, once the basic form of life evolves, like the formation of crystals, higher life forms are very probable.

It isn't necessary that there is a god to make these things possible. In fact, the existence of a god just complicates things further. It is enough to grapple with the concept of infinity without having to place a god within this concept as well.

The idea of gods are socially conceived concepts and, as such, only serve the purpose to control societies. Babies are not born with any preconceived notions of deities and only become aware of such through other people. They are, however, usually born with healthy appetites and less savoury functions. But they know nothing about food either.
User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 1799
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:52 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by Pahu »

OpenMind;1346357 wrote: I looked, but I could not find a single qualification for any of the statements made in the OP.

However, how about some commonly known facts. Where else in this universe is there life? The chances of life evolving are improbable, but not impossible.

Furthermore, once the basic form of life evolves, like the formation of crystals, higher life forms are very probable.

It isn't necessary that there is a god to make these things possible. In fact, the existence of a god just complicates things further. It is enough to grapple with the concept of infinity without having to place a god within this concept as well.

The idea of gods are socially conceived concepts and, as such, only serve the purpose to control societies. Babies are not born with any preconceived notions of deities and only become aware of such through other people. They are, however, usually born with healthy appetites and less savoury functions. But they know nothing about food either.


All living things (down to even a single-celled organism) are highly complex and organized—each component in its proper place and functioning according to its instructions to keep the organism going. They don’t just “happen” in nature—the notion of spontaneous generation was long ago and often disproven [Redi (1688), Spallanzani (1780), Pasteur (1860), and Virchow (1858)], establishing the Law of Biogenesis, which remains confirmed in that man has never observed life coming from anything but life itself, which is not observed to exist at all without all of the above described factors in place in some form.

On the other hand, simple “order” such as that found in a snowflake or a crystal, for example, is exceedingly trivial, when compared to the increase in information, organization or complexity that would be required for either spontaneous generation (the beginning of biological evolution), or any form of progressive macro-evolution itself. The formation of molecules or atoms into geometric patterns such as snowflakes or crystals reflects movement towards equilibrium—a lower energy level, and a more stable arrangement of the molecules or atoms into simple, uniform, repeating structural patterns with minimal complexity, and no function. Living things, on the other hand, do not arrive at and maintain their high levels of order, organization, and complexity in order to achieve thermodynamic equilibrium, but are in fact maintaining far from equilibrium conditions in order to arrive at and maintain those levels.

Thus, crystals are not examples of matter forming itself into more organized or more complex structures or systems even remotely parallel to those inherent in living organisms, even though they may certainly reflect “order” in the form of patterns (the very structure of which is both enabled and limited by the molecules which comprise them), and they certainly cannot serve realistically as “proof” that life can therefore create itself.

To so erroneously equate mere passive “order” of molecules as they enter a state of energy equilibrium (e.g., the formation of crystals) with a spontaneous, self-induced increase in “organized complexity” (as demanded by evolutionary theory for both the beginning and development of life—and as prohibited by the 2nd law), is to truly misunderstand the 2nd law AND evolution. This seems to be exactly what Isaak has done.

Jeffrey Wicken (an evolutionist) does recognize the difference, however, having described it this way:

“‘Organized’ systems are to be carefully distinguished from ‘ordered’ systems. Neither kind of system is ‘random,’ but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an external ‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content ... Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic ‘order.’” [Jeffrey S. Wicken, “The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 77 (April 1979), p. 349]

Nobel Prize winner Ilya Prigogine also has no problem defining the difference, even acknowledging the extreme unlikelihood that the requisite complexity for life could arise from non-life:

“The point is that in a non-isolated [open] system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small.” [I. Prigogine, G. Nicolas and A. Babloyants, Physics Today 25(11):23 (1972)]

Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen make the same clear distinction:

“As ice forms, energy (80 calories/gm) is liberated to the surroundings... The entropy change is negative because the thermal configuration entropy (or disorder) of water is greater than that of ice, which is a highly ordered crystal... It has often been argued by analogy to water crystallizing to ice that simple monomers may polymerize into complex molecules such as protein and DNA. The analogy is clearly inappropriate, however... The atomic bonding forces draw water molecules into an orderly crystalline array when the thermal agitation (or entropy driving force) is made sufficiently small by lowering the temperature. Organic monomers such as amino acids resist combining at all at any temperature, however, much less in some orderly arrangement.” [C.B. Thaxton, W.L. Bradley, and R.L. Olsen, “The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories,” Philosophical Library, New York, 1984, pp. 119-120.]

Isaak asks, “If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?” By now it should be clear to any objective reader that Isaak’s logic is faulty:

his assumption that “order from disorder” is “ubiquitous in nature” is an error



life’s “order” (better described as “organized complexity”) is possible only because of life’s inherent information and energy conversion mechanisms



the “order” found in non-living natural structures is not simply due to an unaided decrease in entropy, but to a decrease in molecular or atomic energy level, due to external factors (usually temperature and the existing molecular structure of the elements involved).

- Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution -
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by Ahso! »

Again, Pahu, you are offering nothing except religious right wing propaganda.

If I show you scientific research which contradicts anything you've offered here, will you admit it to be valid?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 1799
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:52 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by Pahu »

Ahso!;1346484 wrote: Again, Pahu, you are offering nothing except religious right wing propaganda.

If I show you scientific research which contradicts anything you've offered here, will you admit it to be valid?


Sure. If I show you scientific facts disproving evolution, will you admit them to be valid?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 1799
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:52 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by Pahu »



Language 1



Children as young as seven months can understand and learn grammatical rules (a). Furthermore, studies of 36 documented cases of children raised without human contact (feral children) show that language is learned only from other humans; humans do not automatically speak. So, the first humans must have been endowed with a language ability. There is no evidence language evolved (b).

Nonhumans communicate, but not with language. True language requires both vocabulary and grammar. With great effort, human trainers have taught some chimpanzees and gorillas to recognize a few hundred spoken words, to point to up to 200 symbols, and to make limited hand signs. These impressive feats are sometimes exaggerated by editing the animals’ successes on film (Some early demonstrations were flawed by the trainer’s hidden promptings (c)).

Wild apes have not shown these vocabulary skills, and trained apes do not pass their vocabulary on to others. When a trained animal dies, so does the trainer’s investment. Also, trained apes have essentially no grammatical ability. Only with grammar can a few words express many ideas. No known evidence shows that language exists or evolves in nonhumans, but all known human groups have language (d).

Furthermore, only humans have different modes of language: speaking/hearing, writing/reading, signing, touch (as with Braille), and tapping (as with Morse code or tap-codes used by prisoners). When one mode is prevented, as with the loss of hearing, others can be used (e).

a. G. F. Marcus et al., “Rule Learning by Seven-Month-Old Infants,” Science, Vol. 283, 1 January 1999, pp. 77–80.

b. Arthur Custance, Genesis and Early Man (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975), pp. 250–271.

“Nobody knows how [language] began. There doesn’t seem to be anything like syntax in non-human animals and it is hard to imagine evolutionary forerunners of it.” Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1998), p. 294.

c. “Projects devoted to teaching chimpanzees and gorillas to use language have shown that these apes can learn vocabularies of visual symbols. There is no evidence, however, that apes can combine such symbols in order to create new meanings. The function of the symbols of an ape’s vocabulary appears to be not so much to identify things or to convey information as it is to satisfy a demand that it use that symbol in order to obtain some reward.” H. S. Terrance et al., “Can an Ape Create a Sentence?” Science, Vol. 206, 23 November 1979, p. 900.

“...human language appears to be a unique phenomenon, without significant analogue in the animal world.” Noam Chomsky, Language and Mind (Chicago: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1968), p. 59.

d. “No languageless community has ever been found.” Jean Aitchison, The Atlas of Languages (New York: Facts on File, Inc., 1996), p. 10.

“There is no reason to suppose that the ‘gaps’ [in language development between apes and man] are bridgeable.” Chomsky, p. 60.

e. “...[concerning imitation, not language] only humans can lose one modality (e.g., hearing) and make up for this deficit by communicating with complete competence in a different modality (i.e., signing).” Marc D. Hauser et al., “The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve?” Science, Vol. 298, 22 November 2002, p. 1575.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 13. Language
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by Ahso! »

Pahu;1346486 wrote: Sure. If I show you scientific facts disproving evolution, will you admit them to be valid?Okay. Lets begin with Irreducible Complexity. You show me your science and I'll show you mine.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by OpenMind »

Life, as we know it, only exists on Earth. Life, as we know it, cannot exist anywhere else within the realm that we ccan observe. Having said that, we have discovered by observations of the extremities of this planet, that life as we know it, is not the only possible form of life.

The fact that we have not come across another lifeform like our own beyond this world does not prove the existence of a god. The actual cause of life on this planet as we know it was the metabolisation of oxygen which is an active component in our cellular make up. It is a very reactive component.

Without an understanding of the nature of life, it is easy to fall into the notion that it is so amazing, that some entity must have had a hand in its creation. But, as I mentioned earlier, once a chemical process begins, it is difficult to stop it. Crystal formations are an example of this.

Yes, the chances of the initial combination are finite. But we live in an infinite universe. This is by no means an argument for the existence of a deity. After all, if you'd successfully created something, wouldn't you want to do it again. You would want to make it better.

No, I'm sorry. We're not a creation of some deity. We're just an oxygen-based virus.
User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 1799
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:52 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by Pahu »

Ahso!;1346490 wrote: Okay. Lets begin with Irreducible Complexity. You show me your science and I'll show you mine.


Although several persons have cited numerous references from the scientific literature purporting to show that the problem of irreducible complexity I pointed out in Darwin’s Black Box is being seriously addressed, the references show no such thing. Invariably the cited papers or books either deal with non-irreducibly complex biochemical systems, or do not deal with them in enough detail for critical evaluation. I strongly emphasize, however, that I do not prefer it that way. I would sincerely welcome much more serious, sustained research in the area of irreducible complexity. I fully expect such research would heighten awareness of the difficulties of Darwinian evolution.

Behe on Irreducible Complexity and the Evolutionary Literature
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
User avatar
littleCJelkton
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:57 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by littleCJelkton »

Ahso!;1346490 wrote: Okay. Lets begin with Irreducible Complexity. You show me your science and I'll show you mine.


I told you bananas vs pointed sticks
yaaarrrgg
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:29 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by yaaarrrgg »

Pahu, what would be more irreducibly complex: a single-celled organism or God?

You may posit the existence of a higher order of complexity to explain lower orders of complexity, but you just create larger and more complex unanswered questions.

Your arguments don't actually end on the conclusion that God created life. If you complete the reasoning they conclude that something must have created God (who must also be irreducibly complex), and something created that entity, and so on. You end up with an infinite number of different Gods of increasing complexity.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by Ahso! »

Pahu;1346498 wrote: Although several persons have cited numerous references from the scientific literature purporting to show that the problem of irreducible complexity I pointed out in Darwin’s Black Box is being seriously addressed, the references show no such thing. Invariably the cited papers or books either deal with non-irreducibly complex biochemical systems, or do not deal with them in enough detail for critical evaluation. I strongly emphasize, however, that I do not prefer it that way. I would sincerely welcome much more serious, sustained research in the area of irreducible complexity. I fully expect such research would heighten awareness of the difficulties of Darwinian evolution.

Behe on Irreducible Complexity and the Evolutionary LiteratureSo, what does all that mean, that you are now backing away from Irreducible Complexity? Micheal Behe's claim was refuted immediately after making it.

The Flagellum Unspun
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by Ahso! »

BTW, Pahu, Irreducible Complexity is not science, it's conjecture.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 1799
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:52 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by Pahu »

yaaarrrgg;1346501 wrote: Pahu, what would be more irreducibly complex: a single-celled organism or God?

You may posit the existence of a higher order of complexity to explain lower orders of complexity, but you just create larger and more complex unanswered questions.

Your arguments don't actually end on the conclusion that God created life. If you complete the reasoning they conclude that something must have created God (who must also be irreducibly complex), and something created that entity, and so on. You end up with an infinite number of different Gods of increasing complexity.


Unless God has always existed, as He reveals. This thread is not a Bible study. If you are interested in studying the Bible, there are numerous sites on the web.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 1799
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:52 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by Pahu »

Ahso!;1346503 wrote: So, what does all that mean, that you are now backing away from Irreducible Complexity? Micheal Behe's claim was refuted immediately after making it.

The Flagellum Unspun


Only in the imaginations of those clinging to their erroneous preconceptions. You didn't read the whole article, did you?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 1799
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:52 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by Pahu »

Ahso!;1346504 wrote: BTW, Pahu, Irreducible Complexity is not science, it's conjecture.


Why do you believe that? Have you read Darwin's Black Box?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by Ahso! »

Pahu;1346507 wrote: Why do you believe that? Have you read Darwin's Black Box?Point me to the science then.

As for the idea's of Irreducible Complexity, after listening to both sides in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller ... l_District Judge John E Jones III, a conservative appointed to the federal bench by George W Bush in 2002, concluded the following strictly from the testimony by Behe.

wikipedia wrote: In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the first direct challenge brought in United States federal courts to an attempt to mandate the teaching of intelligent design on First Amendment grounds, Behe was called as a primary witness for the defense and asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges that they say further undermine his statements about irreducible complexity and intelligent design. Under cross examination, Behe conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."[45] During cross-examination Behe even stated that the definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well.[46] Also while under oath, Behe admitted that his simulation modeling of evolution with Snoke had, in fact, shown that complex biochemical systems requiring multiple interacting parts for the system to function and requiring multiple, consecutive and unpreserved mutations to be fixed in a population could evolve within 20,000 years. This would happen even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible.[47][48]

John E. Jones III, the judge of the case, in his final ruling relied heavily upon Behe's testimony for the defense in his judgment for the plaintiffs, citing:

* "Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."[49]

* "As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition."[49]

* "First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to 'change the ground rules' of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces."[50]

* "What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best 'fringe science' which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community."[51]

* "We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[52]

* "ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe’s argument that 'irreducibly complex' systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. However, … arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. As Dr. Padian aptly noted, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'… Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich."[53]

* "Professor Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur. Although Professor Behe is adamant in his definition of irreducible complexity when he says a precursor 'missing a part is by definition nonfunctional,' what he obviously means is that it will not function in the same way the system functions when all the parts are present. For example in the case of the bacterial flagellum, removal of a part may prevent it from acting as a rotary motor. However, Professor Behe excludes, by definition, the possibility that a precursor to the bacterial flagellum functioned not as a rotary motor, but in some other way, for example as a secretory system."[54]

* "Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not, in fact, irreducibly complex."[55]

* "With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer’s identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. ... In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by Ahso! »

Pahu;1346506 wrote: Only in the imaginations of those clinging to their erroneous preconceptions. You didn't read the whole article, did you?Is this your excuse for not looking at the science I've provided?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by Ahso! »

Pahu;1346505 wrote: Unless God has always existed, as He reveals. This thread is not a Bible study. If you are interested in studying the Bible, there are numerous sites on the web.Nobody said it was a bible study. You are, however, advocating Intellegent Design, aren't you? BTW, yaaarrrgg can most likely run circles around anyone offering bible study, as can almost any number of individuals on this forum.

Also, as ksnyder pointed out, evolution is not an invention like you seem to think of it, its a name given to a particular observation of life. Evolutionary Theory does not make any claims as to how life began, only how it survives and reproduces.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
littleCJelkton
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:57 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by littleCJelkton »

Pahu;1346505 wrote: Unless God has always existed, as He reveals. This thread is not a Bible study. If you are interested in studying the Bible, there are numerous sites on the web.


Unless God has always existed as He reveals. This is not a Bible study.

- Are you stating God has always existed, God revealed he always existed, how does God always existing link to this being or not being a bible study?

If you have to make the decision on God's existence, or if he revealed his existence, that makes it a bible study right.

So

if God revealed he existed to whom?

if I am to trust no one except god as another post in the garden states how am I to trust another person besides god that god revealed his existence?

if so why am I supposed to know what person who to trust about the revalation of god
yaaarrrgg
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:29 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by yaaarrrgg »

Pahu;1346505 wrote: Unless God has always existed, as He reveals. This thread is not a Bible study. If you are interested in studying the Bible, there are numerous sites on the web.


You are ignoring my main question. What is more complex... a cell or God?

You've also just blown the bottom out of your main argument that irreducible complexity must be created by something else. If you allow that God always existed, one may equally allow that the complexity in the Universe always existed. Try not to aim for your foot. :)
User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 1799
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:52 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by Pahu »

Ahso!;1346509 wrote: Point me to the science then.


You will find it in Behe's book: "Darwin's Black Box."

As for the idea's of Irreducible Complexity, after listening to both sides in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Judge John E Jones III, a conservative appointed to the federal bench by George W Bush in 2002, concluded the following strictly from the testimony by Behe.



Michael Behe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe testified as an expert witness in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board intelligent design trial in 2005. Judge Jones issued a ruling against the school board and in so doing asserted that intelligent design was not based on science.

Dr. Behe writes:

The Court's reasoning in section E-4 is premised on: a cramped view of science; the conflation of intelligent design with creationism; the incapacity to distinguish the implications of a theory from the theory itself; a failure to differentiate evolution from Darwinism; and strawman arguments against ID. The Court has accepted the most tendentious and shopworn excuses for Darwinism with great charity and impatiently dismissed arguments for design.

All of that is regrettable, but in the end does not impact the realities of biology, which are not amenable to adjudication. On December 21, 2005, as before, the cell is run by amazingly complex, functional machinery that in any other context would immediately be recognized as designed. On December 21, 2005, as before, there are no non-design explanations for the molecular machinery of life, only wishful speculations and Just-So stories.

Behe's response is here:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB ... oad&id=697
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 1799
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:52 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by Pahu »

yaaarrrgg;1346542 wrote: You are ignoring my main question. What is more complex... a cell or God?

You've also just blown the bottom out of your main argument that irreducible complexity must be created by something else. If you allow that God always existed, one may equally allow that the complexity in the Universe always existed. Try not to aim for your foot. :)


The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and since the universe is everything that exists, could it exist before it existed? Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that did not come into existence.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by Ahso! »

So, this is what it always comes down to with ID'ers: the science be damned, I'm going to base my decision on what I believe. You guys call non-science, science.

I understand you don't realize this (because you're obviously obstinate) but you've been proven wrong, and to top it off, as yaaarrrgg points out, you've proven yourself wrong.

wikipedia wrote: Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by many members of the scientific community,[3][4][5] and his own biology department at Lehigh University published an official statement opposing Behe's views and intelligent designJust to amuse you, Palu, on what page in his book will I find the science (remember, we're talking about findings from an actual experiment)? Give me the page number and I'll read it. A friend of mine has the book.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by K.Snyder »

Pahu;1346283 wrote:

Extraterrestrial Life?



No verified form of life, which originated outside of earth has ever been observed. If life evolved on earth, one would expect that the elaborate experiments sent to the Moon and Mars might have detected at least simple forms of life (such as microbes) that differ in some respects from life on earth (a). [See “Is There Life in Outer Space?”

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Is There Life in Outer Space?



Mars Lander

Many people, including Carl Sagan, predicted the Viking Landers would find life on Mars. They reasoned that because life evolved on Earth, some form of life must have evolved on Mars. That prediction proved to be false. The arms of the Viking 1 Lander sampled Martian soil. Sophisticated tests on those samples did not find even a trace of life.



a. The widely publicized claims, made by NASA in 1996, to have found fossilized life in a meteorite from Mars are now largely dismissed. [See Richard A. Kerr, “Requiem for Life on Mars? Support for Microbes Fades,” Science, Vol. 282, 20 November 1998, pp. 1398–1400.]

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown

]In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 12. Extraterrestrial Life?


yaaarrrgg;1346295 wrote: If you think something intelligent created the complexity in the Universe, you might consider what mechanism would to sustain that kind of intelligence. God might need at least one neuron (or equivalent) for every atom in the Universe to keep track of all these things. So, the mind of God is even more complex than the thing you are trying to explain. Seems this route of explanation is a not very fruitful. You've only created a bigger question than the one you tried to answer. He's not suggesting "God" "came along", he's suggesting "God" created the Universe and that Earth is the center of it.

He's a creationist, sadly I've yet to meet a creationist that either viably understands the definition of "patronization" or is a more than willing candidate of a nature with sociopathic tendencies with a wit of a sadist, whether consciously or subconsciously obviously depending on the level in how much he/she is aware of their own ignorance. It does damage you know, ignorance that is.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by K.Snyder »

Pahu;1346546 wrote: The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and since the universe is everything that exists, could it exist before it existed? Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that did not come into existence.You're speaking off of the premise that everyone in the known Universe accepts that everything within it is readily discovered and equally as understood, how rude.

Science project theories Mr. Pahu, not a Dr. Suess novel, which I might add is as equally as foreign to me as the name "Pahu", I'm curious what origin is that named derived from...

Anyway, let's place about us a theory that answers your question.

Let's say that space is pragmatically defined as Hydrogen. What we end with is a substance that is equal to exact infinitesimally accompanied by a never ending supply of "energy" as you equate it. Where's your proof that the Universe will ever run out of Hydrogen?
User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 1799
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:52 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by Pahu »

K.Snyder;1346551 wrote: You're speaking off of the premise that everyone in the known Universe accepts that everything within it is readily discovered and equally as understood, how rude.

Science project theories Mr. Pahu, not a Dr. Suess novel, which I might add is as equally as foreign to me as the name "Pahu", I'm curious what origin is that named derived from...


When I was in the Marines, we were sitting around talking when I announced, for some unknown reason, that my name was now kalahawahapahu. After that they nicknamed me Pahu. I had been to Hawaii and I think that may be where I got the idea, after seeing a statue of King Kamehameha, the first king of Hawaii.

Anyway, let's place about us a theory that answers your question.

Let's say that space is pragmatically defined as Hydrogen. What we end with is a substance that is equal to exact infinitesimally accompanied by a never ending supply of "energy" as you equate it. Where's your proof that the Universe will ever run out of Hydrogen?


Why would I want to try and prove that, and what does that have to do with answering my "question"? What question?
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
yaaarrrgg
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:29 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by yaaarrrgg »

Pahu;1346546 wrote: The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and since the universe is everything that exists, could it exist before it existed? Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that did not come into existence.


You've just blown two large holes in your argument:

(1) some irreducibly complex systems are uncaused

(2) some things are not bound by the laws of thermodynamics

Otherwise, God's mind must be irreducibly complex (must be created), and cannot exist forever without completely consuming some power source (entropy).
User avatar
littleCJelkton
Posts: 1215
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:57 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by littleCJelkton »

Pahu;1346555 wrote:

Why would I want to try and prove that, and what does that have to do with answering my "question"? What question?


Your going to play that card now. Your going to make unproven statements be that they are your opinions or that you believe them to be fact. These unproven statements that come out of your post God has Revealed his/her existence, This disproves Evolutionism, or this Proves Creationism. All these statements are a commanding way of asking questions.

What about Dinosaurs, Mammoths, Sabertooth Tigers, Ect...,?

How Did God reveal itself?

To whom did God reveal it's existence too?

Why to only those people?

Does God exist?

If he Does is that proof for creationism, or evolution?

If he Doesn't is that proof for creationsim of evolution?

We could go on and on, but that is just a few so I guess one of the ways K.Snyder wishes you to prove to him God Exist, proving creationism, thus disproving Evolutionism; is by proving that the universe will never run out of Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, or what ever it is a God may be defined as being made up of.
User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 1799
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:52 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by Pahu »

littleCJelkton;1346558 wrote: Your going to play that card now. Your going to make unproven statements be that they are your opinions or that you believe them to be fact. These unproven statements that come out of your post God has Revealed his/her existence, This disproves Evolutionism, or this Proves Creationism. All these statements are a commanding way of asking questions.

What about Dinosaurs, Mammoths, Sabertooth Tigers, Ect...,?

How Did God reveal itself?

To whom did God reveal it's existence too?

Why to only those people?

Does God exist?

If he Does is that proof for creationism, or evolution?

If he Doesn't is that proof for creationsim of evolution?

We could go on and on, but that is just a few so I guess one of the ways K.Snyder wishes you to prove to him God Exist, proving creationism, thus disproving Evolutionism; is by proving that the universe will never run out of Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, or what ever it is a God may be defined as being made up of.


You ask a lot of questions based on your preconceive assertions. I will answer one of them: "Does God exist?"

When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

1. The universe exists.

2. The universe had a beginning.

3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.

4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.

5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.

6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.

7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.

8. Life exists.

9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).

10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.

11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.

The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.

“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes” (From In the Beginning by Walt Brown, Ph.D. page 5). [http://www.creationscience.com/]

Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.

Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.

The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell.

[From “Reincarnation in the Bible?” ]Reincarnation in the Bible? - iUniverse
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by Ahso! »

I see you've been copying and pasting this stuff all over the place, Pahu.

When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we kno

click above
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by Ahso! »

Find that page number yet, Pahu? :wah:
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
Pahu
Posts: 1799
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:52 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by Pahu »

Ahso!;1346571 wrote: Find that page number yet, Pahu? :wah:


If you read the book, you will find what you are seeking.
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
User avatar
OpenMind
Posts: 8645
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 3:54 am

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by OpenMind »

One of the problems with the human logic is the concept of infinity. There is absolutely no conclusive proof that the universe had a beginning. The Big Bang, as it's referred to, may only relate to our little bit of the universe.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Science Disproves Evolution

Post by Ahso! »

Pahu;1346585 wrote: If you read the book, you will find what you are seeking.What I've been seeking is for you to substantiate your claims, which you haven't done in the slightest.

So, its not there, in the book, I know it's not because it's common knowledge Behe has never proved his assertion, while others have actually done the experiments and have disproved Behe's claims. And you haven't read the book, have you. :wah:

We're done, Pahu, you've sufficiently shown yourself to be a creationist troll.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
Post Reply

Return to “General Chit Chat”