Jump to content


Photo

Critique My Argument Against Evolution


  • Please log in to reply
200 replies to this topic

#1 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 60
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 01 February 2018 - 07:49 PM

I've developed an argument against evolution that I've decided is my favorite. Am I wrong? Please tell me what's wrong with it.
---------------------

Many (all?) animals have proteins that were not in the ancestor they are purported to have evolved from. So evolution must have provided new genes, new information.

Proteins are long, very precise sequences of amino acid molecules. Consider how evolution would add one protein. Maybe there would be one random amino acid per mutation added to the end of the partial protein being evolved. Darwin required "numerous, successive, slight modifications" so the amino acids can't all jump together at once. What's the probability of creating the particular needed protein?

There are 20 amino acids to choose from, so for a new, relatively small protein with only 100 amino acids, there are 20100 possible arrangements or permutations which is 10130. Only one or a very small number of those permutations will work for any particular function. The probability that the right protein will be added is a few in 10130.

Even if the universe were a trillion trillion trillion trillion years old with a non-stop trillion mutations per second, that would still be way, way, way too few for evolution to have produced even a single small protein. I'm not exaggerating at all. A trillion is 1012 so this hypothetical universe could only produce 3x1067 mutations. Dividing by the 100 amino acids gives the number of complete proteins tried, which is infinitesimally small compared to 10130. The math is shocking but it isn't that tough.

But it's worse. Proteins don't duplicate from proteins. Their code is stored in DNA which molecular machinery reads to "express" the gene and build the protein. So each new amino acid must be encoded in a three-nucleotide codon. So the probability is lower.

But it's worse. Natural selection removes features that don't work. Partial proteins don't work. You can't keep building a partial protein for generations because natural selection will delete it even if it's totally correct though incomplete.

Some have argued that natural selection acts as a filter which significantly improves the probability. They claim only the incorrect sequences get removed and the correct but incomplete proteins are kept. But that doesn't work. Incomplete proteins don't perform any valuable function, so there's no mechanism for natural selection to determine if they're correct or not.

Also, notice that I've assumed the molecular machinery that expresses the gene already exists. But it would have had to evolve first. How do you evolve the machinery that builds the machinery to express genes? Some people propose there must have been an RNA world, but there's no evidence it ever existed.

You have to have a lot of blind faith in evolution to believe it.

#2 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,933 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 01 February 2018 - 11:10 PM

The biochemical stuff is W-A-Y outside my comfort zone.  I have, in class, called carbon the "slut" of the periodic table,   The high school chemistry book I taught from showed three different bonding linkages for the C6H14 molecule alone.  I avoid molecular chemistry like the plague.

 

That said, I question the statistical analysis.  It is important to know just how the calculation was performed.  Further, so far as I know, the result is based on a "random" combination of atoms.  Chemistry is not random. 

 

Without more information about the specifics of the calculation, the non-random nature of chemistry renders these claims much like using the Drake equation for the probability of finding other intelligent life in the universe.....   GIGO  (Garbage In, Garbage Out).



#3 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,283 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 02 February 2018 - 12:02 AM

The biochemical stuff is W-A-Y outside my comfort zone.  I have, in class, called carbon the "slut" of the periodic table,   The high school chemistry book I taught from showed three different bonding linkages for the C6H14 molecule alone.  I avoid molecular chemistry like the plague.

 

That said, I question the statistical analysis.  It is important to know just how the calculation was performed.  Further, so far as I know, the result is based on a "random" combination of atoms.  Chemistry is not random. 

 

Without more information about the specifics of the calculation, the non-random nature of chemistry renders these claims much like using the Drake equation for the probability of finding other intelligent life in the universe.....   GIGO  (Garbage In, Garbage Out).

 

"The biochemical stuff is W-A-Y outside my comfort zone."

"That said, I question the statistical analysis." :think:

 

Interesting thinking process!! You freely admit that it is "WAY

over your head" HOWEVER You "question the statistical analysis"

What this clearly shows is a severe evolutionary bias NOT due to

Scientific Reasoning (Which you admit is way over your head) BUT

merely due to PHILOSOPHICAL Reasons!!! Otherwise how could

you POSSIBLE be able to question the statistical analysis of a subject

that is way over your head??? 

 

This is what is called a "Kneejerk Reaction" to something that threatens your worldview..

All you know is it cant be true because Evolution must be true.. Kind of like the people

who convince themselves that Dinosaur Red Blood Cells can last 100 million years or

even 100 Trillion years is need be....  The Darwinian fairytale must be defended at all

cost!

:funny:

 

"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements and predictions . . Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back." (Dr. I.L. Cohen, "Darwin Was Wrong:" A Study in Probabilities



#4 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 60
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 02 February 2018 - 12:36 AM

Further, so far as I know, the result is based on a "random" combination of atoms.  Chemistry is not random. 
 
Without more information about the specifics of the calculation, the non-random nature of chemistry renders these claims much like using the Drake equation for the probability of finding other intelligent life in the universe...


The difference between this and the Drake equation is that no one knows if there is any other intelligent life in the universe or not, whereas we do know beyond the sneaking shadow of a doubt that proteins exist. They're here. The question is how.

Chemistry is not random? What does that mean? What is air pressure but atoms randomly bumping against you. Le Chatelier would have no principle without random motion. And the whole of evolution seems to be squarely based on the belief that mutations randomly occur and some of them are good.

#5 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,933 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 02 February 2018 - 01:04 AM

 

The biochemical stuff is W-A-Y outside my comfort zone.  I have, in class, called carbon the "slut" of the periodic table,   The high school chemistry book I taught from showed three different bonding linkages for the C6H14 molecule alone.  I avoid molecular chemistry like the plague.

 

That said, I question the statistical analysis.  It is important to know just how the calculation was performed.  Further, so far as I know, the result is based on a "random" combination of atoms.  Chemistry is not random. 

 

Without more information about the specifics of the calculation, the non-random nature of chemistry renders these claims much like using the Drake equation for the probability of finding other intelligent life in the universe.....   GIGO  (Garbage In, Garbage Out).

 

"The biochemical stuff is W-A-Y outside my comfort zone."

"That said, I question the statistical analysis." :think:

 

Interesting thinking process!! You freely admit that it is "WAY

over your head" HOWEVER You "question the statistical analysis"

What this clearly shows is a severe evolutionary bias NOT due to

Scientific Reasoning (Which you admit is way over your head) BUT

merely due to PHILOSOPHICAL Reasons!!! Otherwise how could

you POSSIBLE be able to question the statistical analysis of a subject

that is way over your head??? 

You do know statistics is mathematics, not biochemistry don't you?

 

The difference is that I've never studied biochemistry.  I do, however, have some background in mathematics and statistics. 

 

The claims made in the OP are based on a probability analysis. 

 

There are a wide variety of legitimate questions about how that analysis was done and what assumptions it is based on.  For example, basing the calculation on random combinations of individual atoms will produce vastly different results than one in which the atoms combine in known and established groups then larger molecules result from those smaller assemblies.


  • mike the wiz likes this

#6 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,933 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 02 February 2018 - 01:18 AM

 

Further, so far as I know, the result is based on a "random" combination of atoms.  Chemistry is not random. 
 
Without more information about the specifics of the calculation, the non-random nature of chemistry renders these claims much like using the Drake equation for the probability of finding other intelligent life in the universe...


The difference between this and the Drake equation is that no one knows if there is any other intelligent life in the universe or not, whereas we do know beyond the sneaking shadow of a doubt that proteins exist. They're here. The question is how.

Chemistry is not random? What does that mean? What is air pressure but atoms randomly bumping against you. Le Chatelier would have no principle without random motion. And the whole of evolution seems to be squarely based on the belief that mutations randomly occur and some of them are good.

The similarity with the Drake equation is that we don't have enough knowledge to make a valid statistical analysis.

 

I've never seen a source claiming these hyper-odds that provided enough information about their calculation and how it was done to make a proper assessment of it's validity.

 

Chemistry is not random in that atoms bond in specific predictable ways.... not randomly.



#7 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,283 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 02 February 2018 - 09:28 AM

The biochemical stuff is W-A-Y outside my comfort zone. I have, in class, called carbon the "slut" of the periodic table, The high school chemistry book I taught from showed three different bonding linkages for the C6H14 molecule alone. I avoid molecular chemistry like the plague.

That said, I question the statistical analysis. It is important to know just how the calculation was performed. Further, so far as I know, the result is based on a "random" combination of atoms. Chemistry is not random.

Without more information about the specifics of the calculation, the non-random nature of chemistry renders these claims much like using the Drake equation for the probability of finding other intelligent life in the universe..... GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out).


"The biochemical stuff is W-A-Y outside my comfort zone."
"That said, I question the statistical analysis." :think:

Interesting thinking process!! You freely admit that it is "WAY
over your head" HOWEVER You "question the statistical analysis"
What this clearly shows is a severe evolutionary bias NOT due to
Scientific Reasoning (Which you admit is way over your head) BUT
merely due to PHILOSOPHICAL Reasons!!! Otherwise how could
you POSSIBLE be able to question the statistical analysis of a subject
that is way over your head???
You do know statistics is mathematics, not biochemistry don't you?

The difference is that I've never studied biochemistry. I do, however, have some background in mathematics and statistics.

The claims made in the OP are based on a probability analysis.

There are a wide variety of legitimate questions about how that analysis was done and what assumptions it is based on. For example, basing the calculation on random combinations of individual atoms will produce vastly different results than one in which the atoms combine in known and established groups then larger molecules result from those smaller assemblies.

"You do know statistics is mathematics, not biochemistry don't you?"

CLEARLY

But How can one even begin to make a statistical analysis about a subject that is completely over their head? Hint... They cannot..

HOWEVER, They can vehemently object to it on philosophical grounds...


"Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts....These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."

(Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin)

#8 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 60
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 02 February 2018 - 10:24 AM

OK, let me discuss my assumptions.

My understanding is that a protein is a specific sequence of amino acids and that most proteins are at least 100 amino acids long. By choosing the relatively small number of 100, I assume that applying the same logic to a 300 amino-acid protein would make the case exponentially stronger, if needed.

There are twenty different amino-acid building-block moleculess and I assume they are all equally likely to be mutated into at any position. That's probably not true, and rarely used ones may be less abundant, which might improve the odds a little. In the other direction, I understand that in rare instances two additional amino acids are used. I ignore them for simplicity. But the final odds are so astronomically small that these considerations are moot.

I say that only a small number of permutations will work because experimenters have substituted amino acids in naturally occurring enzymes (proteins) to see if they would still function. Even with optimal choices for the replacements, they found that one substitution starts to degrade performance and several substitutions make it totally fail.

I didn't consider that there are on average three conformations of rotatable bonds per amino acid that must be correct after the protein is built so it folds to the correct structure. So the 3100 or 5x1047 possible conformations is another astronomical number. But I didn't consider it because my understanding is that many proteins fold naturally to their least energy, correct shape.

Besides, I think folding only affects the DNA if an additional protein, a "chaperone", is needed to fold the protein we're considering. In that case, not only would we need to beat bad odds to build the protein, we would need to beat more bad odds to build the chaperone protein to make the first one useful. (I can't imagine how natural selection would allow either protein to exist while the other was evolving. They'd each be useless by themselves.)

I didn't consider the probability that the amino acids themselves (or nucleotides) will be available in sufficient numbers because apparently they are. Otherwise normal functions wouldn't work.

But the whole concept of amino acids being added to a sequence under-construction (or more accurately, three-nucleotide DNA codons being added to a gene under-construction) is hokey and unrealistic. But it would have to happen if evolution is true. New genes MUST be added somehow. How else?

Some have objected to my argument and said that some viruses can inject DNA. But I don't think that improves the probability. If they inject the whole gene, then it was just constructed somewhere else against equally bad odds. If they only inject snippets, then each snippet was constructed somewhere else and the equally bad odds are just distributed. Besides, that case seems teleological, like a master designer is maintaining a library of DNA snippets to be injected precisely where needed.

S. cerevisiae is a simple eukaryotic organism with less than 7,000 genes. Man has over 20,000 genes. Did man evolve from a simple organism like this yeast? If so, thousands of new genes had to come into existence somehow by Darwin's "numerous, successive, slight modifications". (We can even ignore the earlier unexplainable abiogenesis event.)

It seems to me, the major problem with evolution isn't the incomplete fossil record. No the major problem is the need to add new proteins, or equivalently add new genes, to support new body forms. If my hokey example doesn't explain how they came to be, then how did they?
 

I've never seen a source claiming these hyper-odds that provided enough information about their calculation and how it was done to make a proper assessment of it's validity.


I've never seen evolutionists touch this topic with anything specific. I'm convinced the reason is precisely because the odds are a nightmare.

#9 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 60
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 02 February 2018 - 11:27 AM

HOWEVER, They can vehemently object to it on philosophical grounds...


But, Blitzking, if we restrict our argument to philosophy we have to unnecessarily cede too much territory. Also, it's easier for evolutionists who think they know THE TRUTH to brush aside a philosophical argument than anything with numbers.

I know that my level of knowledge is inadequate for a substantive discussion of evolution. But as I've learned more about the mechanics of proteins, gene expression and molecular machinery, I've become dumbfounded and in shock at how bad and incomplete the argument for evolution is.

I've been throwing my argument around in various comments elsewhere for months and the main rebuttals I receive are:
  • I'm stupid
  • Examples of micro-evolution
  • I'm stupid
  • Natural selection improves the odds, and
  • I'm stupid
I assume that when I'm called stupid, the name caller is thoroughly frustrated that I've made a point for which he has no answer.

The natural selection argument is very interesting because it sounds threatening. But it's my understanding that an incomplete protein wouldn't work even if the completed portion is totally correct. So natural selection has no way of distinguishing the incomplete-but-correct from the incomplete-and-wrong. Similarly, natural selection has no way of determining which amino acids are correct and which ones are wrong. The whole protein either works or it doesn't.

I keep thinking someone will tell me I've missed some major point, but they just say I'm stupid. The participants in this forum are more serious and studious, so I'm eager to see if there's a serious rebuttal.

Blitzking, you don't have to demand that atheists listen to the Bible. Apparently God chose to glorify himself by building the best arguments against evolution into our physical bodies. X-ray crystallography reveals the glory of God. Such fun.
  • Blitzking likes this

#10 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,933 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 02 February 2018 - 11:09 PM

 

You do know statistics is mathematics, not biochemistry don't you?

The difference is that I've never studied biochemistry. I do, however, have some background in mathematics and statistics.

The claims made in the OP are based on a probability analysis..

CLEARLY

But How can one even begin to make a statistical analysis about a subject that is completely over their head? Hint... They cannot.

Since statistics is mathematics, one would simply apply the mathematical processes of statistics and probability to the data.  It's really not very hard.



#11 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,604 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 03 February 2018 - 04:30 AM

 

 

Ken: I've been throwing my argument around in various comments elsewhere for months and the main rebuttals I receive are:
  • I'm stupid
  • Examples of micro-evolution
  • I'm stupid
  • Natural selection improves the odds, and
  • I'm stupid
I assume that when I'm called stupid, the name caller is thoroughly frustrated that I've made a point for which he has no answer.

 

I wouldn't worry, we all get treated the same. Remember, "blessed are those when they say all manner of false things against you for My sake." (paraphrase). The harshest criticisms are reserved for those who truly believe God created like He said He did, because people HATE this belief, because it takes away the power that such a belief not existing would give to easing their conscience. It is the creationist Christianity, which pulls out the rug beneath sin. No good placing your hopes in being evolved slime if God created mankind and you have to stand before Him one day. Pushing the stereotype that those who reject evolution simply do so because they're all a stupid minority that don't understand, "science", is something they are happy to push because lies and deception are okay if you don't have any true basis for morality. As atheists they are not obliged to be honest and have integrity because God doesn't require it of them to their minds.

 

As for this business with proteins, not really my area either, but remember genetics is very complex. Proteins consist of homochiral amino acids remember, not racemic! (All proteins consist of left handed amino acids). A racemic mixture like we find in nature outside of life, is 50% left handed, 50% right handed. If something dies the mixture goes back as it breaks down, to 50/50. The same for sugars, they are all right-handed.

 

So aminos make up proteins, and nucleotides make up DNA. The four letters of the DNA are GATC, the mutations don't happen in proteins remember, but in the letters, the sampling errors, when they go through transcription when the RNA copies the code. So to evolve proteins from scratch would include abiogenesis because of the chicken-and-egg scenario we get with cells, that they need proteins to exist but also the DNA, so neither can exist without the other. 

 

So it's a double whammy to my mind, a double absurdity, because you have to believe that two different processes can create proteins. LOL! An abiogenesis process, which isn't NS and mutations, and then you have to believe the latter evolved more complex ones. LOL.

 

So to conclude proteins are a result of the intelligent programmer, the intelligent designer programming them so you get those various and 100% correct functions from the proteins, and instead saying mutations are errors in the transcription and nothing more, is a far more parsimonious argument. Think about it, all of the proteins are, "correct" in every way they need to be, so what is the best explanation if we are, "stupid"? That two processes created proteins, two difference natural processes both came up with proteins, one abiogenesis making them from scratch then bio-evolution creating all complex types, all through mistakes, or that a supremely intelligent designer created them, that had the intelligence to design them to all be correct. So please tell them, "stupid" is very much a subjective notion based on your point of view. To my mind it is an absurd belief, to propose two stories as to how proteins created themselves. Why on earth would two processes just happen to both create proteins? The chances aren't one in a squillion they're zero.

 

LOL



#12 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,933 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 03 February 2018 - 11:32 AM

HOWEVER, They can vehemently object to it on philosophical grounds.

I am on record in this forum that ID is a good, even excellent, PHILOSOPHICAL argument.  At present, it still falls short as a SCIENTIFIC one.

 

I know that my level of knowledge is inadequate for a substantive discussion of evolution.

Likewise.  That's why I don't get into the biology stuff very much.  Biology is/was simply not something  I've studied very much. 

 

It's a sad commentary on our education system that I was considered a "highly qualified" biology teacher because I was able to pass a multiple choice test.  This despite the fact I've never had a biology class at any level of education in my life.  Not one.  Passing was a 240/300.  I scored 243.  Much of what I knew had been learned in forums such as this one.  There was a "constructed response" (essay) question.  I was given a string of 12 DNA letters and asked to describe how they make a sugar.  I wrote my name on the paper and handed it in for 100/300 on that portion of the test.  (I strongly doubt that translated to 100 points on my final score.)

 

On the other hand, when I took the test to teach physics, I scored 297/300.  The essay question was to describe how an electric generator works.  Since I was three (elective) classes short of a degree in Electronics Engineering and had over 25 years experience as an electronic technician, this was obviously quite easy for me.... 300/300.

 

That is why I don't go into the biological discussions very much.  One exception being when statistics are called on to support a claim.  As I pointed out to Blitz, I have studied math and statistics at both undergrad and graduate levels.

 

I've been throwing my argument around in various comments elsewhere for months and the main rebuttals I receive are:
  • I'm stupid
  • Examples of micro-evolution
  • I'm stupid
  • Natural selection improves the odds, and
  • I'm stupid
I assume that when I'm called stupid, the name caller is thoroughly frustrated that I've made a point for which he has no answer.
......
I keep thinking someone will tell me I've missed some major point, but they just say I'm stupid. The participants in this forum are more serious and studious, so I'm eager to see if there's a serious rebuttal.

I agree that the "stupid" claims are likely the result of frustration.  That frustration is not necessarily only with you but could well be with others who went before you and had no idea  at all what they were talking about.  We've all seen them and they exist on both sides of the issue.

 

In this forum I try to avoid the macro-micro issue because I use a definition of "macro" that is not permitted under forum rules (#6).

 

I've been taking part in these groups for over 25 years now.  This is, by far, the best one I've ever participated in..... and the best moderated.  During my time here I've seen participants from both sides banned for misbehavior.  Most of these forums are active for a couple years then one side pretty much drives out the participants from the other and the site ends up being a "me too" bunch of participants with a monolithic viewpoint.  At that point, discussion quickly ceases and the group becomes a silent shell.

 

IMHO, this forum owes its longevity to the fact that civility is enforced by list management.   Kudos to them.

 

BTW, you haven't posted much, but it's pretty obvious you are far from "stupid." 

 

Blitzking, you don't have to demand that atheists listen to the Bible.

Why would someone who rejects the existence of God believe the Bible?  Shouldn't the process be (1) persuade them that God is a necessity then (2) introduce the Bible to the discussion?



#13 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,933 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 03 February 2018 - 02:46 PM

Pushing the stereotype that those who reject evolution simply do so because they're all a stupid minority that don't understand, "science", is something they are happy to push because lies and deception are okay if you don't have any true basis for morality. As atheists they are not obliged to be honest and have integrity because God doesn't require it of them to their minds.

First: Atheists are only about one-third of those who accept evolution.  (That was only 1/5 about 30 years ago.)

 

Second: Sadly many creationists do not understand science.  For example, Eric H*vind had a blog shortly after he took over the "Dr. Dino" ministry.  In that blog, Eric said DrDino did their science at a 4th grade level.  FOURTH GRADE ! ! !   Seriously ? ? ?  At that time, Dr. Dino was one of the top 4 or 5 creationist ministries around.

 

Third:  Creationism has it's fair share of dishonesty and deceit.  More than its share if one considers that they claim to have the moral high ground because of their religious beliefs and motivation.

 

Fourth:  All of the more dubious claims of evolution were exposed by evolutionists.  Piltdown man comes to mind here.

 

As for this business with proteins, not really my area either...

Right.

 

But that doesn't mean you can't apply your logic skills to the issue any more than my lack of knowledge about proteins prevents me from using my mathematical training to evaluate the statistical claims.

 

There are some who have difficulty with that concept.



#14 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 964 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 03 February 2018 - 05:34 PM

Fourth:  All of the more dubious claims of evolution were exposed by evolutionists.  Piltdown man comes to mind here.


Yeah I've noticed this. You'd think if evolutionary theory was so fragile and soaked in conspiracy, with creationists holding all the ace cards then they would be the first to tear down any obvious falsehoods, yet the integrity of the discipline is always maintained by evolutionary biologist themselves. Like Haeckel's exaggerated embryological drawings. When did creationists ever rescind anything before it was pointed out by evolutionists ?



#15 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 90 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 60
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 03 February 2018 - 10:40 PM

Fourth:  All of the more dubious claims of evolution were exposed by evolutionists.  Piltdown man comes to mind here.

You'd think if evolutionary theory was so fragile and soaked in conspiracy, with creationists holding all the ace cards then they would be the first to tear down any obvious falsehoods, yet the integrity of the discipline is always maintained by evolutionary biologist themselves.


Creationists and ID proponents see the whole of evolution as dubious and false, but evolutionists reject everything they say. Lucy has been called out as a fraud, but does any evolutionist care? So it's only possible for an evolutionist to do the job.

#16 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,283 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 03 February 2018 - 11:24 PM

 

HOWEVER, They can vehemently object to it on philosophical grounds...


But, Blitzking, if we restrict our argument to philosophy we have to unnecessarily cede too much territory. Also, it's easier for evolutionists who think they know THE TRUTH to brush aside a philosophical argument than anything with numbers.

I know that my level of knowledge is inadequate for a substantive discussion of evolution. But as I've learned more about the mechanics of proteins, gene expression and molecular machinery, I've become dumbfounded and in shock at how bad and incomplete the argument for evolution is.

I've been throwing my argument around in various comments elsewhere for months and the main rebuttals I receive are:
  • I'm stupid
  • Examples of micro-evolution
  • I'm stupid
  • Natural selection improves the odds, and
  • I'm stupid
I assume that when I'm called stupid, the name caller is thoroughly frustrated that I've made a point for which he has no answer.

The natural selection argument is very interesting because it sounds threatening. But it's my understanding that an incomplete protein wouldn't work even if the completed portion is totally correct. So natural selection has no way of distinguishing the incomplete-but-correct from the incomplete-and-wrong. Similarly, natural selection has no way of determining which amino acids are correct and which ones are wrong. The whole protein either works or it doesn't.

I keep thinking someone will tell me I've missed some major point, but they just say I'm stupid. The participants in this forum are more serious and studious, so I'm eager to see if there's a serious rebuttal.

Blitzking, you don't have to demand that atheists listen to the Bible. Apparently God chose to glorify himself by building the best arguments against evolution into our physical bodies. X-ray crystallography reveals the glory of God. Such fun.

 

 

HOWEVER, They can vehemently object to it on philosophical grounds...

But, Blitzking, if we restrict our argument to philosophy we have to unnecessarily cede too much territory.

 

AGREED 

 

That is why you RARELY IF EVER attack Darwin's fairytale using philosophical arguments.. Why should I?

it doesn't even come close to holding up by Facts, Evidence, or most any other Empirical Scientific Discipline..

 

Is Darwin's Mindless MYO Microbe to Microbiologist Myth in any way....

 

Testable?          NOPE

Falsifiable?        NOPE 

Experimental?   NOPE

Observable?     NOPE

Repeatable?     NOPE

 

 

You see... UCA for all flora and fauna scores a GOOSE EGG when exposed to Scientific Rigor..

 

Why would Anyone need to bring philosophy into the equation?  That can come later after we

have already established the truth about the Fairytale which by default proves a Supernatural

Intelligence Agent created us for a purpose and Man is NOT an Accidental Ape due to a fortunate

clash of chemicals that came from nowhere when nothing exploded for no reason... 

 

THEN

 

I can start to talk about my philosophical reasons for believing that the Supernatural Intelligence

Agent that I have just Proved exists (By Default) happens to be the Judeo Christian God...

 

 

Beautiful-Scenery-Wallpapers10.jpg   2e661fc08c3d2683bf1b829a4700c987.jpg

 

 

 

"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)



#17 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,283 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 03 February 2018 - 11:31 PM

 

Fourth:  All of the more dubious claims of evolution were exposed by evolutionists.  Piltdown man comes to mind here.

You'd think if evolutionary theory was so fragile and soaked in conspiracy, with creationists holding all the ace cards then they would be the first to tear down any obvious falsehoods, yet the integrity of the discipline is always maintained by evolutionary biologist themselves.


Creationists and ID proponents see the whole of evolution as dubious and false, but evolutionists reject everything they say. Lucy has been called out as a fraud, but does any evolutionist care? So it's only possible for an evolutionist to do the job.

 

 

GREAT POINT!!!!  SO TRUE... LETS SEE NOW... IT ONLY TOOL THEM 40 YEARS TO EXPOSE PILTDOWN AND 100 TO EXPOSE HAECKEL.... WHAT WAS THEIR HURRY??? LOL

 

 

When the cause is "right", then it does not matter how one goes about achieving a goal, yes? Misleading people, outright lying, shading the truth — those are acceptable, yes? For the most part, the philosophy of "the end justifies the means" is frowned upon. But apparently, indoctrination in evolutionism is an exception. In that case, go ahead and lie to students; they must be compelled to believe in evolution (and use the equivocation fallacy to refer to this philosophy about the past as "science") at all costs. Don't forget to leave the mistakes, frauds, errors and reclassifications in the textbooks! When these sidewinders lie, they are being consistent with their fundamentally flawed worldview.
 

There have been many examples of evolutionary falsehoods used to indoctrinate students into evolution. The list includes
  • Forged Haeckel embryo pictures, still used in many textbooks
  • Staged photos of peppered moths which wouldn’t even prove goo-to-you evolution anyway but merely the creationist-invented theory of natural selection.
  • Misleading analogies that cars and airplanes evolved when of course they were designed (Intelligent Design leader Phillip E. Johnson calls this ‘Berra’s Blunder’, and Ian Plimer committed this blunder too).
  • Claiming that creationists believe that God must have created cave fish as blind.
  • Insinuating that creationists deny natural selection and variation.
  • Piltdown Man, an obvious forgery not exposed for 40 years, and the peccary tooth dubbed ‘Nebraska man’
  • Archaeoraptor , the Piltdown Bird.
Teaching lies to kids is OK! But at least one evolutionist is happy to use falsehood, as long as the end result is more students believing in evolution. An evolutionary True Believer and educator, one Bora Zivkovic, Online Community Manager at PLoS-ONE, proudly stated:

You can find out what was stated and read the rest by clicking on 

https://creation.com...lieve-evolution
 



#18 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 867 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 04 February 2018 - 12:15 AM

Teaching lies to kids is OK![/size] But at least one evolutionist is happy to use falsehood, as long as the end result is more students believing in evolution. An evolutionary True Believer and educator, one Bora Zivkovic, Online Community Manager at PLoS-ONE, proudly stated:[/size]

To save the readers a click, the concept that Zivkovic is advocating as useful but not correct is NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria), which is the idea that science and religion cover entirely separate subjects. Obviously this is wrong because many religions make many claims that contradict many conclusions from science. The science being presented in those cases is still accurate apart from maybe simplifying things a little to suit the level of the students, the point is more to downplay the extent to which that science conflicts with the claims of religion to prevent students from becoming defensive.

#19 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,283 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 04 February 2018 - 01:43 AM

 

HOWEVER, They can vehemently object to it on philosophical grounds.

I am on record in this forum that ID is a good, even excellent, PHILOSOPHICAL argument.  At present, it still falls short as a SCIENTIFIC one.

 

I know that my level of knowledge is inadequate for a substantive discussion of evolution.

Likewise.  That's why I don't get into the biology stuff very much.  Biology is/was simply not something  I've studied very much. 

 

It's a sad commentary on our education system that I was considered a "highly qualified" biology teacher because I was able to pass a multiple choice test.  This despite the fact I've never had a biology class at any level of education in my life.  Not one.  Passing was a 240/300.  I scored 243.  Much of what I knew had been learned in forums such as this one.  There was a "constructed response" (essay) question.  I was given a string of 12 DNA letters and asked to describe how they make a sugar.  I wrote my name on the paper and handed it in for 100/300 on that portion of the test.  (I strongly doubt that translated to 100 points on my final score.)

 

On the other hand, when I took the test to teach physics, I scored 297/300.  The essay question was to describe how an electric generator works.  Since I was three (elective) classes short of a degree in Electronics Engineering and had over 25 years experience as an electronic technician, this was obviously quite easy for me.... 300/300.

 

That is why I don't go into the biological discussions very much.  One exception being when statistics are called on to support a claim.  As I pointed out to Blitz, I have studied math and statistics at both undergrad and graduate levels.

 

I've been throwing my argument around in various comments elsewhere for months and the main rebuttals I receive are:
  • I'm stupid
  • Examples of micro-evolution
  • I'm stupid
  • Natural selection improves the odds, and
  • I'm stupid
I assume that when I'm called stupid, the name caller is thoroughly frustrated that I've made a point for which he has no answer.
......
I keep thinking someone will tell me I've missed some major point, but they just say I'm stupid. The participants in this forum are more serious and studious, so I'm eager to see if there's a serious rebuttal.

I agree that the "stupid" claims are likely the result of frustration.  That frustration is not necessarily only with you but could well be with others who went before you and had no idea  at all what they were talking about.  We've all seen them and they exist on both sides of the issue.

 

In this forum I try to avoid the macro-micro issue because I use a definition of "macro" that is not permitted under forum rules (#6).

 

I've been taking part in these groups for over 25 years now.  This is, by far, the best one I've ever participated in..... and the best moderated.  During my time here I've seen participants from both sides banned for misbehavior.  Most of these forums are active for a couple years then one side pretty much drives out the participants from the other and the site ends up being a "me too" bunch of participants with a monolithic viewpoint.  At that point, discussion quickly ceases and the group becomes a silent shell.

 

IMHO, this forum owes its longevity to the fact that civility is enforced by list management.   Kudos to them.

 

BTW, you haven't posted much, but it's pretty obvious you are far from "stupid." 

 

Blitzking, you don't have to demand that atheists listen to the Bible.

Why would someone who rejects the existence of God believe the Bible?  Shouldn't the process be (1) persuade them that God is a necessity then (2) introduce the Bible to the discussion?

 

 

"I am on record in this forum that ID is a good, even excellent, PHILOSOPHICAL argument.  At present, it still falls short as a SCIENTIFIC one."

 

Wow.. That is quite Magnanimous, Even "Christian" of you.. Going by your posts, It surely must have been very painful for you to come to that decision..

 

Did it finally dawn on you that Abiogenesis is not PHILOSOPHICALLY Possible?  Guess what? it isn't SCIENTIFICALLY Possible either... Lots of ZEROs..

 

 

 

"In this forum I try to avoid the macro-micro issue because I use a definition of "macro" that is not permitted under forum rules (#6)."

 

I can fully understand why you do so.... I can thing of several other good reasons to avoid it as well... LIKE THE PLAGUE....

 

 

"That frustration is not necessarily only with you but could well be with others who went before you and had no idea  at all what they were talking about. "

 

That's interesting.. I have yet to meet a single person who believes the Darwin's Fairytale that knows what they are talking about..  If they did, They wouldn't

believe it to begin with!  Come on....

 

Over "500 Million Years" while SOME Jellyfish "evolved" into a.... Human... OTHER jellyfish "evolved" into a .....JELLYFISH!!!??  :burp:

 

Dinosaur Red Blood Cells still hanging around after "100 Million Years??

 

Why do you force yourself to believe such absolute Garbage just so you can feel justified in rejecting the Bible?

 

I can understand why you might want to try to shoehorn a few billion years in between Genesis 1.1 and Genesis 1.2

 

I myself even considered it a plausible view at one point years ago before I took a real hard look at it..

 

HOWEVER 

 

UCA for all flora and fauna?, Calling Jesus a Liar? Getting Rid of Adam and Eve, The Garden of Eden, The Flood?

just so you can pretend you are on the side of "Science"?  I am sorry,, The Devil has blinded you, and you have now

become a willing participant..  You no longer have any excuse..

 

 

Lenin coined a phrase for people who supported his cause of the Communist revolution while knowing full well that they were going to be the FIRST ones to face the firing squad .... He called them "Useful Idiots",, Atheists know full well why Darwinian Evolution was made popular and why it must be protected at all cost IN SPITE OF all of the Evidence AGAINST IT ..

Atheists are Laughing at you while Christians Mourn for you and the damage you are doing to Gods kingdom because of your arrogance that you somehow know more than God does about HIS Creation ..

How about the Garden of Eden? God described it in detail in his word. What do YOU have to say? Should we believe God? Or You? (You ALWAYS dodge this important question!)

Yes, Atheists quietly laugh at you while you carry their banner for them...

 

"The day will come when the evidence constantly accumulating around the evolutionary theory becomes so massively persuasive that even the last and most fundamental Christian warriors will have to lay down their arms and surrender unconditionally. I believe that day will be the end of Christianity.” G. Richard Bozarth,

"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.", “The Meaning of Evolution”, American Atheist,

"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, as secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today” (Ruse).

 

"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist"
Richard Dawkins



#20 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,283 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 04 February 2018 - 01:55 AM

 

Teaching lies to kids is OK![/size] But at least one evolutionist is happy to use falsehood, as long as the end result is more students believing in evolution. An evolutionary True Believer and educator, one Bora Zivkovic, Online Community Manager at PLoS-ONE, proudly stated:[/size]

To save the readers a click, the concept that Zivkovic is advocating as useful but not correct is NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria), which is the idea that science and religion cover entirely separate subjects. Obviously this is wrong because many religions make many claims that contradict many conclusions from science. The science being presented in those cases is still accurate apart from maybe simplifying things a little to suit the level of the students, the point is more to downplay the extent to which that science conflicts with the claims of religion to prevent students from becoming defensive.

 

 

 The science being presented in those cases is still accurate apart from maybe simplifying things a little to suit the level of the students,

 

OH SURE... HE IS ONLY INTERESTED IN "SIMPLIFYING THINGS A LITTLE"    AND BILL AND LORETA MET ON THE TARMAC TO "TALK ABOUT THE GRANDKIDS" RIGHT?

 

‘You cannot bludgeon kids with truth (or insult their religion, i.e., their parents and friends) and hope they will smile and believe you. Yes, NOMA is wrong, but is a good first tool for gaining trust. You have to bring them over to your side, gain their trust, and then hold their hands and help them step by step. And on that slow journey, which will be painful for many of them, it is OK to use some inaccuracies temporarily if they help you reach the students. " Bora Zivkovic,

 

 

 

"the point is more to downplay the extent to which that science conflicts with the claims of religion to prevent students from becoming defensive."

 

NO.. THE POINT IS TO BRAINWASH AND INDOCTRINATE THE KIDS FROM THE START TO BELIEVE THAT EVOLUTION IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT..

 

‘If a student, like Natalie Wright who I quoted above, goes on to study biology, then he or she will unlearn the inaccuracies in time. If most of the students do not, but those cutesy examples help them accept evolution, then it is OK if they keep some of those little inaccuracies for the rest of their lives. It is perfectly fine if they keep thinking that Mickey Mouse evolved as long as they think evolution is fine and dandy overall. Without Mickey, they may have become Creationist activists instead. Without belief in NOMA they would have never accepted anything, and well, so be it. Better NOMA-believers than Creationists, don’t you think?’ Bora Zivkovic,






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users