Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Ron

Why Atheistic Evolution Is A Myth

Recommended Posts

For atheistic evolution to be true (and by that I mean “Macro†evolution):

 

1- Evolution MUST be continuing today. But; we have absolutely no evidence of life arising from inanimate matter. Absolutely NO amino acids have been observed to have formed into life via “natural†chemical reactions. Further; absolutely NO kind/species have been observed changing/transforming/evolving into another kind/species. ALL so called “evidences†for this is presupposed and contrived.

 

2- After supposed millions (or billions) of years, and millions of kinds/species, why is it that only “Man†would have a historical record of achievement ! The fact is we have absolutely NO evidence of ANY other so called “evolved†animal achieving even ONE of the following;

 

An imagined, designed, tested, and manufactured – A heavier than air “craft†that achieves the speed, distance and altitude of the human air/space craft. A sea “craft†that achieves the speed, distance and endurance of the submarine. An land traveling “craft†that achieves the speed, distance and efficiency of the automobile. Communications devices that not only transmit voice, picture, and video feed, but massive amounts of pure data anywhere we have physically been. Write a sonnet, novel, technical manual, (etc…). Create the instruments to play music. And the factories to build and maintain ALL of the above man-made items.

 

 

I could go on and on, but you get my gist. That only MAN would evolve to achieve what he has is illogical, and alone renders Atheistic evolution to the level of “Mythâ€ÂÂ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also noteworthy to mention that despite millions and millions and millions of years that life supposedly has existed on the earth, there are no traces of these capabilities that go back further than the last few thousand years.

 

Now, what are the chances of that? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

G'day

 

When we come out of the womb we know little. Most of what we know now is learned from being taught. Scientists often say that we are among the most vulnerable animals when we are babies. I have argued against abortion based on the idea that a baby is less vulnerable inside the womb than he or she is outside. No one has been able to refute that argument.

 

A lot of what we believe is because of the way we learn, which is through repetition. Stalin & Hitler were both quoted as saying if you tell a lie often enough people will end up believing it. This is true but, it has a corollary. If you tell the truth often enough someone may believe you also.

 

I only speak one language fluently. That is the one I am communicating to you with now. If you were to put a gun to my head and tell me to speak in Russian, I wouldn't be able to do it. Do I think that proves that the only “true†language is the one that I speak? I think not. I only learned English.

 

Evolution has been said to be true even though it defies logic. Dawkins’ blind Watchmaker analogy is used to reject what our minds tell us about organizational complexity or design (inference).

 

Let's take an example. Which of these was intelligently designed, a dog, a horse, a cat, a cow, an automobile, an airplane, a television, a cell phone. As Christians we believe all of them were created by intelligent design. Why would anyone else see it any differently? The answer is that they have been told to-- brainwashed by repetition and authority figures. The media, the educational system, the government all participate in repetitiously saying over and over that the appearance of design is not true. So, it’s pure repetition coupled with social and peer group pressure. “The truth is…â€ÂÂ

 

From what I understand the human mind is a finite source of information. We can only pull out of it what was put into it or what it creates. Darwin created (wrote) the book Origin of Species. Science wants to spin it by saying that Darwin observed based on “evidence†evolution by "natural" selection. Realistically he created the idea of ebo first and then, to support his premise, gathered data that he decided supported his premise. The data was neutral but he “spun†it in his mind and anf it magically became “evidence.†Others sympathetically called it “proof†there be no God and used it to justify their atheism. Darwin became their hero!

 

Science wants to rewrite history now because they've never been able to establish that a bunch of small random steps brought life into existence from the not living. Now, they seek to distance themselves from those first “simple†steps. Life defies being broken down into a bunch of little simple steps.

 

Why is evolution believed by anyone? To quote a lyric from South Pacific, the musical, “You have to be carefully taught.â€ÂÂ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For atheistic evolution to be true (and by that I mean “Macro†evolution):

 

1- Evolution MUST be continuing today. But; we have absolutely no evidence of life arising from inanimate matter. Absolutely NO amino acids have been observed to have formed into life via “natural†chemical reactions. Further; absolutely NO kind/species have been observed changing/transforming/evolving into another kind/species. ALL so called “evidences†for this is presupposed and contrived.

 

2- After supposed millions (or billions) of years, and millions of kinds/species, why is it that only “Man†would have a historical record of achievement ! The fact is we have absolutely NO evidence of ANY other so called “evolved†animal achieving even ONE of the following;

 

An imagined, designed, tested, and manufactured – A heavier than air “craft†that achieves the speed, distance and altitude of the human air/space craft. A sea “craft†that achieves the speed, distance and endurance of the submarine. An land traveling “craft†that achieves the speed, distance and efficiency of the automobile. Communications devices that not only transmit voice, picture, and video feed, but massive amounts of pure data anywhere we have physically been. Write a sonnet, novel, technical manual, (etc…). Create the instruments to play music. And the factories to build and maintain ALL of the above man-made items.

 

 

I could go on and on, but you get my gist. That only MAN would evolve to achieve what he has is illogical, and alone renders Atheistic evolution to the level of “Mythâ€ÂÂ.

65422[/snapback]

I agree, atheistic evolution did not occur. God had a plan for man to fulfill, the evolution of other life forms did not lead to the achievements you have noted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, atheistic evolution did not occur. God had a plan for man to fulfill, the evolution of other life forms did not lead to the achievements you have noted.

65483[/snapback]

Don't get me wrong... There is no evidence for macro-evolution at all. But, at least Theistic evolutionists don't have the same illogical conundrum as atheistic evolutionists. Although they have enough problems of their own, but that is not built into the OP of this thread, so we will not be sidetracked with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For atheistic evolution to be true (and by that I mean “Macro†evolution):

 

1- Evolution MUST be continuing today. But; we have absolutely no evidence of life arising from inanimate matter. Absolutely NO amino acids have been observed to have formed into life via “natural†chemical reactions. Further; absolutely NO kind/species have been observed changing/transforming/evolving into another kind/species. ALL so called “evidences†for this is presupposed and contrived.

 

2- After supposed millions (or billions) of years, and millions of kinds/species, why is it that only “Man†would have a historical record of achievement ! The fact is we have absolutely NO evidence of ANY other so called “evolved†animal achieving even ONE of the following;

 

An imagined, designed, tested, and manufactured – A heavier than air “craft†that achieves the speed, distance and altitude of the human air/space craft. A sea “craft†that achieves the speed, distance and endurance of the submarine. An land traveling “craft†that achieves the speed, distance and efficiency of the automobile. Communications devices that not only transmit voice, picture, and video feed, but massive amounts of pure data anywhere we have physically been. Write a sonnet, novel, technical manual, (etc…). Create the instruments to play music. And the factories to build and maintain ALL of the above man-made items.

 

 

I could go on and on, but you get my gist. That only MAN would evolve to achieve what he has is illogical, and alone renders Atheistic evolution to the level of “Mythâ€ÂÂ.

65422[/snapback]

Further… Atheistic evolutionists have to deal with their logical (and scientific) morass of “life from nonlifeâ€ÂÂ, and “intelligence from non-intelligenceâ€ÂÂ. Both of which effect ALL evolution from an atheistic standpoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1- Evolution MUST be continuing today. But; we have absolutely no evidence of life arising from inanimate matter. Absolutely NO amino acids have been observed to have formed into life via “natural†chemical reactions. Further; absolutely NO kind/species have been observed changing/transforming/evolving into another kind/species. ALL so called “evidences†for this is presupposed and contrived.

 

 

I just want to lend a balanced view to these thoughts.

 

In regards to the thought that life is not still evolving from non-life - I think the typical answer from an evolutionist would be that it may very well be happening, but whatever level of life forms are evolving from non-life, they are not as advanced as already existing life, so they are either out-competed for resources or are consumed as food - so we will never be able to actually see new life. Of course, I don't agree with this answer, but it at least would be a logical response to your complaint.

 

As far as speciation is concerned, according to an evolutionary biologist, speciation has occurred many times in recent history. Species are loosely defined by geologically, socially, or s*xually separated sub-groups. Under these terms, scientists group giraffes into 4 or 5 distinct species based on locals and color patterns. I'm not saying that is an example of macro-evolution, but if you are trying to point out about a lack of speciation, that argument won't fly with an evolutionist.

 

You'd be better off pointing out something like the lack of evolution from one kingdom to another, or one order to another - but a biologist would simply assert that such large scale evolution takes millions of years - so we obviously wouldn't be observing it.

 

A question for you is: how much "kind" diversity do you think has occurred since creation? Do you think God initially created 100's of species of bats or beetles? I can't say for certain, but I would venture to say that the number of bats and beetle species was much smaller in the beginning and that adaptation and selection has played out.

 

Clearly, there is some plasticity in any given animal kind that allows them to adapt certain features to help them survive. The challenge for me is to try and convince an evolutionist that there are boundaries to this adaptation and where the boundaries lie. They will wonder why you can get major changes to a bat's nose and echolocation abilities within a creation model but can't get a combination of other changes that turns the bat into a non-bat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to lend a balanced view to these thoughts.

65652[/snapback]

No problem…

 

In regards to the thought that life is not still evolving from non-life - I think the typical answer from an evolutionist would be that it may very well be happening, but whatever level of life forms are evolving from non-life, they are not as advanced as already existing life, so they are either out-competed for resources or are consumed as food - so we will never be able to actually see new life.  Of course, I don't agree with this answer, but it at least would be a logical response to your complaint.

65652[/snapback]

That may well be their typical answer, but it is still a faith statement; so, when words like “it may very well be happening†and “so we will never be able to actually seeâ€ÂÂ, they give more of a religious connotation, than that of a scientific inference (remember, this is being addressed toward “Atheistic Evolutionistsâ€ÂÂ). And, neither answer rebuts the question.

The problem for the atheist still remains; “we have absolutely no evidence of life arising from inanimate matterâ€ÂÂ, “absolutely NO amino acids have been observed to have formed into life via “natural†chemical reactionsâ€ÂÂ.

 

As far as speciation is concerned, according to an evolutionary biologist, speciation has occurred many times in recent history.  Species are loosely defined by geologically, socially, or s*xually separated sub-groups.  Under these terms, scientists group giraffes into 4 or 5 distinct species based on locals and color patterns.  I'm not saying that is an example of macro-evolution, but if you are trying to point out about a lack of speciation, that argument won't fly with an evolutionist.

65652[/snapback]

The key words here are “loosely definedâ€ÂÂ! Which, in-and-of itself infers a lack of empirical knowledge, and therefore a “faith statementâ€ÂÂ.

And, still, no real evidence for “Macro-evolutionâ€ÂÂ.

 

You'd be better off pointing out something like the lack of evolution from one kingdom to another, or one order to another  - but a biologist would simply assert that such large scale evolution takes millions of years - so we obviously wouldn't be observing it.

65652[/snapback]

I disagree. All my points are valid, and can ONLY be rebutted by speculation and faith statements. The materialistic atheist is far more “religious†then they’ll admit.

And the statement “large scale evolution takes millions of years†is simply another “faith statementâ€ÂÂ, it’s not empirical science. Which of course, is hardly something someone should base their faith (and eternity) on. But that is their choice. So, a biologist making such a statement, isn’t making a “scientifically sound†assertion, but more of a speculation on what they think might happen, or want to happen. It falls more under the logical fallacies of “appeal to beliefâ€ÂÂ, or “Argumentum ad Futurisâ€ÂÂ. But it still falls under the “Assertum Non Est Demonstratum†logical fallacy; and that is to- believe that to state a belief, or to state it repeatedly, vigorously, or sincerely is somehow to demonstrate or to substantiate the veracity of that belief. But, without the actual evidence, one is simply making a faith statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A question for you is:  how much "kind" diversity do you think has occurred since creation?  Do you think God initially created 100's of species of bats or beetles?  I can't say for certain, but I would venture to say that the number of bats and beetle species was much smaller in the beginning and that adaptation and selection has played out.

65652[/snapback]

A bat is still a bat, and a beetle is still a beetle, no matter someone attempts to redefine kind/species to fit within the parameters of macro-evolution. Further, there is absolutely NO empirical evidence that a bat has ever been anything other than a bat, or a beetle anything other than a beetle. Thus, further negating macro-evolutionary modeling.

 

Clearly, there is some plasticity in any given animal kind that allows them to adapt certain features to help them survive.  The challenge for me is to try and convince an evolutionist that there are boundaries to this adaptation and where the boundaries lie.  They will wonder why you can get major changes to a bat's nose and echolocation abilities within a creation model but can't get a combination of other changes that turns the bat into a non-bat.

65652[/snapback]

Again, a bat is still a bat, no matter what its nose looks like. And, ALL the evidence adduced show that all bats have had relatively the SAME “historical record of achievementâ€ÂÂ, throughout ALL history!

Which takes us right back to the one of the OP’s main points (which has yet to be addressed, I might add):

 

After supposed millions (or billions) of years, and millions of kinds/species, why is it that only “Man†would have a historical record of achievement ! The fact is we have absolutely NO evidence of ANY other so called “evolved†animal achieving even ONE of the following;

 

An imagined, designed, tested, and manufactured – A heavier than air “craft†that achieves the speed, distance and altitude of the human air/space craft. A sea “craft†that achieves the speed, distance and endurance of the submarine. An land traveling “craft†that achieves the speed, distance and efficiency of the automobile. Communications devices that not only transmit voice, picture, and video feed, but massive amounts of pure data anywhere we have physically been. Write a sonnet, novel, technical manual, (etc…). Create the instruments to play music. And the factories to build and maintain ALL of the above man-made items.

65422[/snapback]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, heres my two cents in this discussion.

 

First of all, i dont think many evolutionists are claiming that Abiogenesis, or the creation of life from non-life, MUST be continuing today. So the first part of your first point, i feel is a bit unnecessary. To the second part of your first point, speciation, or the splitting of species, has been observed, and the only way to refute this is to change the scientific definition of what constitutes as a species. If you have good reason to refute the current scientific definition of a species, id really like to hear it, but under its current definition, speciation, or the changing of one species into another species has been observed.

 

As to your second point, the reason why Only man has the historical record of achievement, is because Man was the only one with the ability to record their own history. But i find the problem of this argument to be its own crux; Has any being, other than a whale, been capable of achieving its massive size? Has any being other than a Cheetah, been capable of achieving the 70 mile per hour running speed? Ignoring the fact that we can recognize different animals BECAUSE of its differences, and that if every animal was the same, we wouldnt be able to differentiate it from another animal, every animal has some sort of ability that separates itself from the herd, so to say, and some to the point that they stand out as the best at what they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, heres my two cents in this discussion.

65659[/snapback]

Okay…

 

First of all, i dont think many evolutionists are claiming that Abiogenesis, or the creation of life from non-life, MUST be continuing today. So the first part of your first point, i feel is a bit unnecessary.

65659[/snapback]

Actually, if Abiogenesis (or anything like it) happened just once, then it logically follows that it would happen again (and again). It then further follows, that it would be going on today as well. Therefore, the first point(s) is (are) very necessary. Therefore, it/they are logical, rational and scientifically sound.

Abiogenesis, on the other hand, is not.

 

To the second part of your first point, speciation, or the splitting of species, has been observed, and the only way to refute this is to change the scientific definition of what constitutes as a species. If you have good reason to refute the current scientific definition of a species, id really like to hear it, but under its current definition, speciation, or the changing of one species into another species has been observed.

65659[/snapback]

Actually, the only way to “prove it†(speciation) is to change the meaning of kind/species so that it fits within the parameters of macroevolution. But, ALL dogs are dogs, all cats are cats, all bats are bats, all birds are birds (etcetera…). We have never observed a dog “macro-evolving†into anything else. Nor have we seen a cat, bat, bird (etcetera…) evolving into anything else. If you have a good evidence (other than to promulgate macroevolution) that proves a dog “evolving†into something else, or a cat “evolving into anything else†I’d really like to hear it (see it etcetera…). And simply “changing†the definition to meet macro-evolutionary needs isn’t a good enough excuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to your second point, the reason why Only man has the historical record of achievement, is because Man was the only one with the ability to record their own history.

65659[/snapback]

 

Which, of course only strengthens my point, and weakens that of atheistic macro-evolution; and does absolutely nothing to help the evolutionary model against the other examples I provided. Besides, I only scratched the surface with the plethora of examples I can provide.

 

But i find the problem of this argument to be its own crux; Has any being, other than a whale, been capable of achieving its massive size?

65659[/snapback]

First, there is absolutely no evidence that whales are any different than they’ve always been.

 

Second, there is absolutely no evidence that the whale had one whit to do with its condition. Man, on the other hand has a massive amount of evidence to prove his achievements. Therefore, your point is null and void of anything other than speculation.

 

Has any being other than a Cheetah, been capable of achieving the 70 mile per hour running speed?

65659[/snapback]

Absolutely! In fact, every vehicle I personally own, far exceeds 70 mile per hour running speed. But, I don’t think that is what you are alluding to. Nor, does what you’re alluding to fit within the parameters of the OP. Unless you can provide evidence where the Cheetah thought up, designed, fabricated, tested and brought into production, the means for it’s speed. You see, there is absolutely NO evidence that the cheetah has not ALWAYS been able run as fast as it does. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence that the cheetah had anything to do with this ability. Although, it does look like a very good design feature.

 

Ignoring the fact that we can recognize different animals BECAUSE of its differences, and that if every animal was the same, we wouldnt be able to differentiate it from another animal, every animal has some sort of ability that separates itself from the herd, so to say, and some to the point that they stand out as the best at what they do.

65659[/snapback]

Ignoring the FACT that they (all other creatures than man) bear absolutely no evidences that THEY had anything to do with the abilities we possess, is striking. And your totally ignoring that man is the “ONLY†creature with the ability to create and improve upon ALL the abilities of ALL the other creatures. And do so in a FAR SUPEROIR manner, only defeats the model of atheistic macro-evolution further!

It is totally illogical (rationally AND scientifically) that man, and no other creature, in the so-called millions (or billions) of years of so-called evolution, has achieved so much, and NO other creature has done much of anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A question for you is:  how much "kind" diversity do you think has occurred since creation?  Do you think God initially created 100's of species of bats or beetles?  I can't say for certain, but I would venture to say that the number of bats and beetle species was much smaller in the beginning and that adaptation and selection has played out.

 

Clearly, there is some plasticity in any given animal kind that allows them to adapt certain features to help them survive.  The challenge for me is to try and convince an evolutionist that there are boundaries to this adaptation and where the boundaries  lie.  They will wonder why you can get major changes to a bat's nose and echolocation abilities within a creation model but can't get a combination of other changes that turns the bat into a non-bat.

65652[/snapback]

I would like to see more on this boundary as it is an argument I see a lot.

 

I do find it interesting that speciation has played out in observable time and it has happened much more rapidly than it should according to the typical evolutionary timeline and maths needed for mutations.

 

 

No problem…

That may well be their typical answer, but it is still a faith statement; so, when words like “it may very well be happening†and “so we will never be able to actually seeâ€ÂÂ, they give more of a religious connotation, than that of a scientific inference (remember, this is being addressed toward “Atheistic Evolutionistsâ€ÂÂ). And, neither answer rebuts the question.

65656[/snapback]

Good point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before i reply to this, may i ask, why is it you split the posts into two? I dont think read that there was a word limit in the rules section. If you could just clear that up, before i post, that would be great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before i reply to this, may i ask, why is it you split the posts into two? I dont think read that there was a word limit in the rules section. If you could just clear that up, before i post, that would be great.

65679[/snapback]

There is a quote box limit. That's why there is usually more than one post. Of course I'm not entirely sure what the quote box limit number is, it's not much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a quote box limit. That's why there is usually more than one post.  Of course I'm not entirely sure what the quote box limit number is, it's not much.

65685[/snapback]

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...p?showtopic=952

 

It is 10.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to lend a balanced view to these thoughts.

 

As far as speciation is concerned, according to an evolutionary biologist, speciation has occurred many times in recent history.  Species are loosely defined by geologically, socially, or s*xually separated sub-groups.  Under these terms, scientists group giraffes into 4 or 5 distinct species based on locals and color patterns.  I'm not saying that is an example of macro-evolution, but if you are trying to point out about a lack of speciation, that argument won't fly with an evolutionist.

 

65652[/snapback]

Hi Air Run,

 

Yes. On speciation I wanted to comment briefly. A species is a variation of a former ancestor or ancestors. It is defined by as you said. I am visually oriented, rather than philosophical, so I like examples. Dogs---> speciation unequivocally. And we know it was done by directed breeding. So I don't have a problem with speciation. Speciation is basically isolating allelles that express in the phenotype. But that is a far cry from macroevolution, and the evolutionist knows it, if he knows anything at all about genetics.

 

SOme evos like to lump this in with other like examples, and call it "evidence." But all it is is a bait and switch--not genuine science when you use an unfair example to demonstrate something totally different.

 

Operational disciplines quantify, define, and demonstrate, using data to give conclusions that are equivalent to the data.

 

Therefore, technically, neither creationism, nor macroevolution are operational sciences, they are historical science. Genetics and the principles within it ARE operational science, but not extrapolations and hypotheses made on the past history of life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before i reply to this, may i ask, why is it you split the posts into two? I dont think read that there was a word limit in the rules section. If you could just clear that up, before i post, that would be great.

65679[/snapback]

The word limit is mainly for one liners that contribute nothing and those who love to copy and paste big long answers from some where else. We frown on both.

 

Also, if it's quote boxes you are speaking of. You can read my sig about that.

 

You can quote as many different members as you like. But each post can only have 10 quote boxes. It's a forum program limit we cannot change and we have to abide by it as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I don't have a problem with speciation. Speciation is basically isolating allelles that express in the phenotype. But that is a far cry from macroevolution, and the evolutionist knows it, if he knows anything at all about genetics.

I agree - which is why I suggested Ron not focus on speciation - because that's small potatoes, and a reason why Tkubok is challenging him on the point.

 

A better boundary from a creationist perspective might be family.

Under the family Canidae you have dogs, wolves, foxes, coyotes, jackels - and I can see these species descending from the original members of the Caniade family.

 

QUOTE(Tkubok @ Dec 13 2010, 10:21 AM)

Has any being other than a Cheetah, been capable of achieving the 70 mile per hour running speed?

I think Tkubok's point is that all animals have distinctions - ours is intelligence and creativity - but in the grand scheme of things that's not qualitatively better than whales being big or cheetahs being fast.

 

I don't agree with him on this point - and I think if he were honest with himself he would agree that the intelligence of humans is qualitatively better (quite significantly) than the unique abilities of other animals. Even if you only look at it from a survivalist standpoint, the intelligence of humans gives us the upper hand over other creatures.

 

I don't know if Tkubok has children, but if he supposes that all traits are qualitatively equal - I wonder if he would be satisfied if his child grew up to be the best rock thrower in the world yet never learned to speak, walk, read, or wipe his nose (assuming he had the mental capabilities to learn these things).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

]Ah, okay, thanks for that reply, now i understand.

 

 

Actually, if Abiogenesis (or anything like it) happened just once, then it logically follows that it would happen again (and again). It then further follows, that it would be going on today as well. Therefore, the first point(s) is (are) very necessary. Therefore, it/they are logical, rational and scientifically sound.

Abiogenesis, on the other hand, is not.

 

Actually, no it wouldnt, and this is really easy to demonstrate. Lets say, i have 5 dice, and i place them in a cup, randomly shake them around, and roll them onto a wooden table. Now, from there, lets say we recorded the exact location of the dice on the table, the number that was facing up, even the angle of the dice.

 

What are the requirements, to repeat such a feat, with each dice in its exact same location, angle, and face? Quite difficult, wouldnt you say? You would have to calculate and replicate the exact speed of the hand that tossed the dice, the precise release time, etc. But, its not impossible, as clearly it was done once before.

 

The fact that something occurred before, doesnt mean it will never occur again, but unless the specific requirements are duplicated, you will not likely to see it occur again. Maybe you are aware of a proto-earth condition that exists on this planet right now, but i sure dont.

 

 

Actually, the only way to “prove it†(speciation) is to change the meaning of kind/species so that it fits within the parameters of macroevolution. But, ALL dogs are dogs, all cats are cats, all bats are bats, all birds are birds (etcetera…). We have never observed a dog “macro-evolving†into anything else. Nor have we seen a cat, bat, bird (etcetera…) evolving into anything else. If you have a good evidence (other than to promulgate macroevolution) that proves a dog “evolving†into something else, or a cat “evolving into anything else†I’d really like to hear it (see it etcetera…). And simply “changing†the definition to meet macro-evolutionary needs isn’t a good enough excuse.

65666[/snapback]

Ive managed to read some of the other posts, which seems to me, to indicate that your beef with speciation isnt that it hasnt occurred at all, but rather the degree to which it occurs. Are what the others saying regarding your beliefs about speciation, true?

 

 

 

Which, of course only strengthens my point, and weakens that of atheistic macro-evolution; and does absolutely nothing to help the evolutionary model against the other examples I provided.  Besides, I only scratched the surface with the plethora of examples I can provide.

 

I am willing to bet that most of your examples has to do with one attribute in humans; Intelligence. In any case, i was simply providing a simple answer to your question. Let us continue with our discussion, shall we? :)

 

First, there is absolutely no evidence that whales are any different than they’ve always been.

 

Second, there is absolutely no evidence that the whale had one whit to do with its condition.  Man, on the other hand has a massive amount of evidence to prove his achievements. Therefore, your point is null and void of anything other than speculation.

 

I am not making the argument that whales are different. Although, of course, i would disagree, i dont know if discussing the evidence of common ancestry would constitute as derailing this argument. I only used the word "Acheive" because you used it, but the crux of the problem doesnt lie in that word, but rather, in the intelligence of human beings.

 

Humans haven't "Acheived" their attribute of intelligence. The human brain wasnt different 2000 years ago, than it is now, and ancient thinkers like Aristotle, Hippocrates and Plato are brilliant, intelligent thinkers in their own right. We've been able to increase our knowledge, but we haven't necessarily become more, or less, intelligent than we were 3000, 4000 years ago. The attribute that humans hold, that is, intelligence, is the same as the attribute that whales hold, i.e. their size. Like the size of whales, this attribute in humans fluctuates, as you can have people who are great, brilliant thinkers, and you can have people who couldnt understand why fire is so hot. But there is no acheivement here.

 

And with that in mind, we, or atleast I, was talking about specific attributes that animals have, and not how they obtained those attributes.

 

As to your second point, not at all. Humans are, as most animals are, curious, and are proned to trying to understand the world around them. Its why we call it human nature, because it really is human nature. Humans are proned and bound to this, just like whales are bound to their own attributes, and could not decide to change if they could. Whether or not this is because a God placed this pre-programmed nature into us or not, doesnt change the fact that a human, especially if he wasnt taught by other humans regarding society, rules, and norms, will be proned to acting out their nature.

 

Absolutely! In fact, every vehicle I personally own, far exceeds 70 mile per hour running speed. But, I don’t think that is what you are alluding to. Nor, does what you’re alluding to fit within the parameters of the OP. Unless you can provide evidence where the Cheetah thought up, designed, fabricated, tested and brought into production, the means for it’s speed. You see, there is absolutely NO evidence that the cheetah has not ALWAYS been able run as fast as it does. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence that the cheetah had anything to do with this ability. Although, it does look like a very good design feature.

 

 

 

This, again, brings me back to the point i was making above. Everything that you listed there, all points to a single attribute of mankind, that is, intelligence. Just like the attribute of a cheetah is for it to run very fast, the attribute of humans is intelligence. There is no evidence to point to the fact that humans, 2000 years, or even 4000, 6000 years ago, had a brain that was so different than modern humans, that they were incapable of learning, for example, the atomic theory, if they were taught from birth the necessary language and knowledge.

Ignoring the FACT that they (all other creatures than man) bear absolutely no evidences that THEY had anything to do with the abilities we possess, is striking. And your totally ignoring that man is the “ONLY†creature with the ability to create and improve upon ALL the abilities of ALL the other creatures. And do so in a FAR SUPEROIR manner, only defeats the model of atheistic macro-evolution further! 

It is totally illogical (rationally AND scientifically) that man, and no other creature, in the so-called millions (or billions) of years of so-called evolution, has achieved so much, and NO other creature has done much of anything.

65667[/snapback]

I havent ignored that. Infact, i mentioned it, by pointing out that the attribute of human beings is intelligence. Although i wouldnt say that we've improved ALL the abilities of other creatures, id agree that we are getting closer and closer, yet in many ways, we are so far off. But the problem with that argument, is this. Much of our knowledge, our understand, our technologies, are based off of that of nature. I think Isaac Newton put it very aptly when he said "If i have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulder of giants". These creatures have done so much, and man has recognized this by mimicking them in many aspects. Its also why so many plants are the basis for many of the pharmaceutical breakthroughs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before i reply to this, may i ask, why is it you split the posts into two? I dont think read that there was a word limit in the rules section. If you could just clear that up, before i post, that would be great.

65679[/snapback]

You can only run so many quotes links per reply (10 I think) because of a buffer in the system. So I usually just split my posts up if I'm replying to multiple points. My rule of thumb is around six or seven quotes per reply (but it varies). It keeps problems from happening.

 

if you attempt to run too many quotes, you'll see what I'm referring to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, no it wouldnt, and this is really easy to demonstrate. Lets say, i have 5 dice, and i place them in a cup, randomly shake them around, and roll them onto a wooden table. Now, from there, lets say we recorded the exact location of the dice on the table, the number that was facing up, even the angle of the dice.

65698[/snapback]

Okay, here you are attempting to equate the statistical variances of something (in this case dice) as an attribute for (or supporting) Abiogenesis (atheists usually attempt to disprove this concept. So I thank you for using it). And if you want to go that route, we can, and further expound on it to prove Abiogenesis’ improbability of happening in the first place (see Sir Fredric Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe). And from that point you will get yourself in a statistical bind as well as logical, rational and scientific conundrum.

 

What are the requirements, to repeat such a feat, with each dice in its exact same location, angle, and face? Quite difficult, wouldnt you say? You would have to calculate and replicate the exact speed of the hand that tossed the dice, the precise release time, etc. But, its not impossible, as clearly it was done once before.

65698[/snapback]

This further makes your hopes for Abiogenesis a statistical impossibility in the first place. So thanks for that.

 

The fact that something occurred befoStatre, doesnt mean it will never occur again, but unless the specific requirements are duplicated, you will not likely to see it occur again. Maybe you are aware of a proto-earth condition that exists on this planet right now, but i sure dont.

65698[/snapback]

First, you are assuming a “proto-Earth†condition, but that is nothing more than pure speculation at best. And I have no problem with your placing your faith statements here.

 

Second, “IF†abiogenesis even had the possibility to happen in the first place (which is “statisticallyâ€ÂÂ, “logicallyâ€ÂÂ, “rationally†and “scientifically†impossible), then it DOES follow that it could happen again and again; because – “If†the “Conditions†for abiogenesis to happen were even possible, then it DOES follow that it could happen again and again!

 

Ive managed to read some of the other posts, which seems to me, to indicate that your beef with speciation isnt that it hasnt occurred at all, but rather the degree to which it occurs. Are what the others saying regarding your beliefs about speciation, true?

65698[/snapback]

No, you are incorrect. My beef with the “atheistic evolutionary†definition of speciation, is that it is so fluid, so as to prove evolution in the first place. In other words, atheistic evolutionists use a flexible definition to support their beliefs in evolution.

 

And, further, none of this goes to the OP question:

 

1- Evolution MUST be continuing today. But; we have absolutely no evidence of life arising from inanimate matter. Absolutely NO amino acids have been observed to have formed into life via “natural†chemical reactions. Further; absolutely NO kind/species have been observed changing/transforming/evolving into another kind/species. ALL so called “evidences†for this is presupposed and contrived.

 

2- After supposed millions (or billions) of years, and millions of kinds/species, why is it that only “Man†would have a historical record of achievement!

65422[/snapback]

And you have really failed to adequately address any of it (as we’ll see further below).

 

 

I am willing to bet that most of your examples has to do with one attribute in humans; Intelligence. In any case, i was simply providing a simple answer to your question. Let us continue with our discussion, shall we? :)

I am not making the argument that whales are different. Although, of course, i would disagree, i dont know if discussing the evidence of common ancestry would constitute as derailing this argument. I only used the word "Acheive" because you used it, but the crux of the problem doesnt lie in that word, but rather, in the intelligence of human beings.

 

Humans haven't "Acheived" their attribute of intelligence. The human brain wasnt different 2000 years ago, than it is now, and ancient thinkers like Aristotle, Hippocrates and Plato are brilliant, intelligent thinkers in their own right. We've been able to increase our knowledge, but we haven't necessarily become more, or less, intelligent than we were 3000, 4000 years ago. The attribute that humans hold, that is, intelligence, is the same as the attribute that whales hold, i.e. their size. Like the size of whales, this attribute in humans fluctuates, as you can have people who are great, brilliant thinkers, and you can have people who couldnt understand why fire is so hot. But there is no acheivement here.

 

And with that in mind, we, or atleast I, was talking about specific attributes that animals have, and not how they obtained those attributes.

 

As to your second point, not at all. Humans are, as most animals are, curious, and are proned to trying to understand the world around them. Its why we call it human nature, because it really is human nature. Humans are proned and bound to this, just like whales are bound to their own attributes, and could not decide to change if they could. Whether or not this is because a God placed this pre-programmed nature into us or not, doesnt change the fact that a human, especially if he wasnt taught by other humans regarding society, rules, and norms, will be proned to acting out their nature.

This, again, brings me back to the point i was making above. Everything that you listed there, all points to a single attribute of mankind, that is, intelligence. Just like the attribute of a cheetah is for it to run very fast, the attribute of humans is intelligence. There is no evidence to point to the fact that humans, 2000 years, or even 4000, 6000 years ago, had a brain that  was so different than modern humans, that they were incapable of learning, for example, the atomic theory, if they were taught from birth the necessary language and knowledge.

I havent ignored that. Infact, i mentioned it, by pointing out that the attribute of human beings is intelligence. Although i wouldnt say that we've improved ALL the abilities of other creatures, id agree that we are getting closer and closer, yet in many ways, we are so far off. But the problem with that argument, is this. Much of our knowledge, our understand, our technologies, are based off of that of nature. I think Isaac Newton put it very aptly when he said "If i have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulder of giants". These creatures have done so much, and man has recognized this by mimicking them in many aspects. Its also why so many plants are the basis for many of the pharmaceutical breakthroughs.

65698[/snapback]

And again, you stray from the points:

 

The fact is we have absolutely NO evidence of ANY other so called “evolved†animal achieving even ONE of the following;

An imagined, designed, tested, and manufactured – A heavier than air “craft†that achieves the speed, distance and altitude of the human air/space craft. A sea “craft†that achieves the speed, distance and endurance of the submarine. An land traveling “craft†that achieves the speed, distance and efficiency of the automobile. Communications devices that not only transmit voice, picture, and video feed, but massive amounts of pure data anywhere we have physically been. Write a sonnet, novel, technical manual, (etc…). Create the instruments to play music. And the factories to build and maintain ALL of the above man-made items.

65422[/snapback]

Your dialogue further makes my point. You attempt to paint humans and animals with the same brush, but you cannot (or will not?) show any evidence of any other creature that has achieved even the minutest fraction of what man has done. All you’ve really done is go on about how man’s intelligence is the difference. And to this I agree!!! But, it in no way refutes my points. All it really does is support what I maintain.

 

Further, you haven’t supported any refutation that any of this is any different than it has always been. And for that I thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My dad once told me an analogy about DNA forming randomly (like Abiogenesis).

 

It goes like this:

 

If You were to take all 26 letters of the alphabet in blocks and throw them up in the air, how many times would it take for those blocks to land (in a straight line) from A to Z?

 

Answer: never :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My dad once told me an analogy about DNA forming randomly (like Abiogenesis).

 

It goes like this:

 

If You were to take all 26 letters of the alphabet in blocks and throw them up in the air, how many times would it take for those blocks to land (in a straight line) from A to Z?

 

Answer: never :D

65730[/snapback]

Awesome! That's the best analogy for Abiogenesis that I've heard in awhile! :)

 

It's true, because no matter how many times you throw molecules together they aren't going to magically create DNA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, no it wouldnt, and this is really easy to demonstrate. Lets say, i have 5 dice, and i place them in a cup, randomly shake them around, and roll them onto a wooden table. Now, from there, lets say we recorded the exact location of the dice on the table, the number that was facing up, even the angle of the dice.

65698[/snapback]

We had a similar illustration the other day. Is this what they are saying in university now in an attempt to nullify the fact of probability in random protein synthesis.

 

Your illustration is quite valid, but it is valid only for the scenario given. You can't compare it to random protein synthesis. The problem is that no matter what magnitude the different angles, combinations, etc. come up to, none of them have any purpose or significance, except that they are different. So if I roll the five dice again, it's combination and configuration has a probability of equal magnitude. Say there are 10 ^ 20 combinations and configurations of the dice. None of them would do anything significant, and all of them would have a probability of 1:10^20.

 

The difference is that in a random chemical bonding of a specific functional 150 amino acid peptide chain, there are only a few combinations out of 20^150 combinations that will fold and function properly. Thats 20x20x20x20x20.... 150 times. Now 10^150 is 1 followed by 150 zeros. But 20 to a magnitude is eponentially greater than 10 to a magnitude. For instance 10^2=100 ; 20^2=400 4 times greater. 10^3=1000; 20^3=8000 8 times greater. 10^4=10000; 20^4=160000 16 times greater. 10^5=100,000, but 20^2 is 400 and 20^5=3.2 million 32 times greater.

 

So can you imagine how much greater 20^150 is than 10^150?!!

 

A 1 with 150 zeros is unimaginable, but the number of zeros for 20^150 would be exponential from the zeros of 10^150. And unlike the dice, a few combos will fold properly to make a functional protein, not just another purposeless variation.

 

I could not find the equation, but Baumgardner says that this number is actually greater than the number of possible chemical reactions that could ever take place in the universe. If you need the link I could try to find it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms