The Vanishing Case for Evolution

ICR ^ | February 12, 2009 | Henry Morris, Ph.D.*

[LeGrande]

How would you falsify that theory?

Show a direct contradiction to nested hierarchy. In other words find a chimera, a mammal with feathers or a bird with milk glands, . Any number of creatures referenced in Revelations would be chimeras. Find one : )

Or show that common ancestry isn't. Show that DNA between Man and Ape has the same difference as DNA between Man and Lizards. Evolution, if false, should be easy to falsify.

I have a better idea. Why don't you Creationists just rewrite the first part of Genesis? It wouldn't have to even be much of a rewrite, just change the order a little, it is just silly to have God make plants before he makes the Sun. Put the creation of the Sun and planet first, followed by water, plants and then animals. Simple : ) The problem with your theory of Creation is that it is trivially simple to falsify.

[Jaime2099]

A most excellent point, one that cannot be overstated. Extremist liberals are using the public schools to push some of the most vial, liberal views that have ever existed. On this very site, Christians will say they have no problems with evolution whatsoever. That in itself is proof as to how amazingly effective their tactics have been. That so many Christians would refute God’s very own words simply because these lies were pounded into their young, gullible minds by the teachers they trusted. It troubles me greatly when I think about it. I pray that one day soon God will raise up heroes that will take the public schools from these atheists and return them back to real science and education.

[Jaime2099]

Evolution, if false, should be easy to falsify.

It is easy to falsify, it's made up garbage to give an alternative to God. There is no such thing as Human Evolution. Since the dawn of modern man we have never seen nor observed not even one human evolution of any kind whatsoever. Scientists have found no fossils, observed no phenomenon, found no evidence, nothing. Falsify, yes, it is too easy.

I have a better idea. Why don't you Creationists just rewrite the first part of Genesis? It wouldn't have to even be much of a rewrite, just change the order a little, it is just silly to have God make plants before he makes the Sun. Put the creation of the Sun and planet first, followed by water, plants and then animals. Simple : ) The problem with your theory of Creation is that it is trivially simple to falsify.

I refuse to rewrite the Bible, I'm not that prideful and dimwitted. God's light is greater than the Sun, if he made plants first it makes perfect sense. He was giving them the light they need. It appears that you think you are better at creating life and everything in it better than God. You did not falsify Creationism in the slightest. The lines in your post do nothing but prove your arrogance, not falsify Creationism.

[LeGrande]

Scientists have found no fossils, observed no phenomenon, found no evidence, nothing.

Hmm, I have fossils behind my house. How can you say that they haven't found any fossils?

You did not falsify Creationism in the slightest.

Hmm, I was simply trying to show how it could be fixed.

Since you believe the earth is only 6000 years old, how do you explain the fact that the Egyptians didn't die in Noah's flood?

[Jaime2099]

Hmm, I have fossils behind my house. How can you say that they haven't found any fossils?

Fossils that could be used as evidence.

Hmm, I was simply trying to show how it could be fixed.

So you were not trying to falsify Creationism? Your post was clearly stated as though you were.

Since you believe the earth is only 6000 years old, how do you explain the fact that the Egyptians didn't die in Noah's flood?

What Egyptians? Are you saying that Egyptians existed at the time of the flood? I disagree.

[stinkypew]

What is evolution’s explanation for man’s survival after he gained knowledge that he is mortal? I mean, when that first creature along the evolutionary chain realized that one day he too would drop dead, why didn’t he just pack it in then and there? It seems to me that the idea of a God had to emerge pretty damn quick at that point or else evolution would have hit a wall of suicide. Or they would have starved to death because they were too depressed to grub for roots in their existentialist funk.

[Revolting cat!]

To quote (from memory) our hero John Lennon:

I don't believe in anything,
Only Yoko and me!

[mrjesse]

Said LeGrande to GGG:I have answered the questions many times. This topic started over 6 months ago and is now several hundred posts long. Mrjesse follows from thread to thread and I have grown bored with it and told him so.

GGG, LeGrande has many times claimed that he has answered my questions, but has never pointed out just where. And I don't remember him answering them. What he has done is skirted around the issue by responding either by asking me a question or answering questions that I didn't even ask. When he says that he has answered my questions (which are now color coded), he's either lying or redefining "answer" to mean "Provided enough info that MrJesse can answer them for himself." He hasn't actually answered them himself. If he had, he could just show us all the URL where he answered them and show me the liar that he has so many times called me (for which he has never even once provided evidence).

As a matter of fact, at one time (Search for "searching pleasure" without the quotes) I even gave LeGrande (and everybody) a copy of ALL of my posts and pings up to that day so he could easily search through everything I'd ever said and everything he'd ever said to me -- all in one long document (rather then having to page through by clicking the "next" link) - and he still has never showed me where he answered my questions.

And as I explained that if LeGrande had indeed answered my questions and he's afraid I'll forget, he can just save the URL of where he answered them, and put it into notepad, and whenever I claim he hasn't answered my questions, all he'd have to do was copy and paste the URL and show everyone that he had indeed answered!

And even if he really had answered them, is it so much to ask him to answer them once more so he can save the URL? Then, after that, we could all see that he answered.

But in actuality, he is refusing (and has been for months) to answer the questions because, well, the only thing I can figure is that he knows his answers to the questions would either contradict his previous claims, or would demonstrate his view and previous claims to be completely wrong scientifically.

And the reason I keep bringing this subject up is because he keeps going from thread to thread posting scientifically incoherent claims - some of which he knows are false - and it sure looks to me like he's trying to deceive people, otherwise he'd be honest.

So I can see that LeGrande loves to tell people that they are liars and yet refuses in my case to provide a single case in point of where I've lied. And he loves to say that he answered my questions, and yet refuses to provide a case in point - the only conclusion I can come to is that he's lying and he knows it. What else conclusion can I come to considering the circumstances?

And this is all important because the problem of atheistic evolutionary "scientists" proclaiming and defending lies does not happen just on FR - it happens in the classroom as well! And I have found that atheistic evolutionists who disagree with LeGrande's claims still won't openly challenge LeGrande's lack of integrity. So I can only logically conclude that this is what goes on in university classrooms across this country - and the students are being lied to and the teachers know it and nobody says anything!

This is why it is important to pursue coherency and the truth when an absurd claim is made by somebody who presents himself as knowledgeable in the field (like LeGrande does).

Basically, LeGrande's claim is that at that when you look at the sun, it's actually really not where it appears but 2.1 degrees ahead because the earth rotated 2.1 degrees in the 8.3 minutes it took sunlight to reach earth.

Obviously this theory goes to shambles when applied to Pluto or a 12-light-hour-away planet or a merry go around that turns 180 degrees in 8.3 minutes. And that is why LeGrande refuses to answer the color coded questions.
(Now if he was a geo-centrist, then his claims would fit with his worldview, because the sun actually would move 2.1 degrees in 8.3 minutes.. But he hasn't admitted to being a geocentrist either.)

Once we all know that LeGrande loves to call people liars when they haven't lied, and he says he answered a question that he didn't answer, we will all be better able to put in context his claims -- specifically that they aren't worth a lot.

I would have CC'd LeGrande to this, but he doesn't want me to post to him.

-Jesse

(Hi LeGrande, if you're reading this! ;-)

[mrjesse]

Just to clear up some possible confusion:

Quoting #79:

Said GGG:When is the last time I posted to you or about you LeGrande?

Replied LeGrande:I don't know. When did you post this?

GGG: I think maybe LeGrande does support the spreading of lies and misinformation, at least if it's him doing the spreading.

If it was just made up I apologize, and if that is the case I would be happy to have you post to me : )

Responds mrjesse:

There may be some confusion there. The phrase "GGG: I think maybe LeGrande does support the spreading of lies and misinformation, at least if it's him doing the spreading." was not made up and GGG never said it. It was I who said it to GGG. The "GGG:" part was me addressing the statement to GGG -- not me indicating that GGG had said something.

It just dawned on me that I'd seen somebody using the format of "Nickname:" to attribute a statement to somebody - so I thought I'd point this out so neither of you thought that I was trying to falsely attribute a statement to GGG!

Regards,

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

Said LeGrande:I have a better idea. Why don't you Creationists just rewrite the first part of Genesis? It wouldn't have to even be much of a rewrite, just change the order a little, it is just silly to have God make plants before he makes the Sun. Put the creation of the Sun and planet first, followed by water, plants and then animals. Simple : ) The problem with your theory of Creation is that it is trivially simple to falsify.

Hmmm. Say. Maybe God created the sun only a few days after he did the plants? Plants can go a few days just fine without light. And besides, not only, like ECO says, could God's own light have been ample - and even more then that, don't you suppose that if God could create the sun and the moon and all of the plants that he could figure out away to keep them alive for a few days?

A major problem in your thinking when you try to use science to disprove the Bible is that you forget the very first 4 words: "In the beginning GOD..."!

If you accept the first four words, then you've got no problem with the rest. If you do not accept the first four words, then of course none of it is going make sense to you.

-Jesse

[GodGunsGuts]

I’m having a hard time figuring out what your dispute with LeGrande is about. What is the debate about? Is it connected to a larger debate? Just curious.

[mrjesse]

Said LeGrande:Science is not about proof, it is about falsification. When someone says that science claims to have a proof, that person is simply ignorant or a nut case.

Neither of those statements are true.

There are lots of sciences that do have proof. And you're totally missing another aspect: Evidence for. Not only does a theory need to have no evidence against it, it needs evidence for it.

For example, in my field of electronics things are proved all the time. Every time I test a certain component in a certain way, it behaves in a predictable manner doing the same thing it did the previous time I performed that exact test.

The fact is that transistors behave in a certain way and it can be proved by demonstrating that they behave in a certain way. That's how your computer is working right now as you read this -- them little transistors or mosfets are turning on and off billions of times a second - and they do it predictably! (until you put MS windows on it.)

For example, let us imagine you're using an older slowish computer at 2Ghz. Let's say it's got about 55 million transistors, and every instruction cycle involves 20% of them. That's 2 billion times 11 million, or 2.2 × 10^16 transistor state changes per second. Now lets say your computer has been on for the last 8 hours: Now we get 6.33600 × 10^20 transistor change operations in 8 hours. Now multiply that by ten million computers, now it's 6.336*10^27! In case you don't know what that means, it's like this: 6,336,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!

So don't you think that when it comes to the science of the operation of transistors that it's been proven that not only that they can but that they do indeed perform billion and billions transistor operations in a predictable way? And you think there is no proof in science? Have I got news for you..!

The fact is that real science does have proofs for a theory. In many of the real sciences, we can perform the test over and over, even billions of times, to prove that it works.

ASBE and AFN (All Species by Evolution and All From Nothing) on the other hand is a completely different kind of science - and if you look around, I think you'll find that to most people, AFN and ASBE are no more then a belief; a faith.

And always remember that lack of evidence against is not evidence for..!

-Jesse

[mrjesse]

Said GGG: I’m having a hard time figuring out what your dispute with LeGrande is about. What is the debate about? Is it connected to a larger debate? Just curious.

It's sort of part of a bigger debate. Basically, LeGrande tells people that the big bang and "all from nothing" is scientifically plausible because everything is made up of "waves of nothing," which is an idea he got from some book by a guy named McLaughlin or some such.

But with my humble experience with physics and science (as in real sciences, hands on stuff, not evolutionary stuff) his claim seemed bizarre and incoherent - so I tried to figure out exactly what he was saying.

And then eventually, in his efforts to convince me that he was right and I was wrong, he said that when you look at the sun it's not where it appears but 2.1 degrees ahead of where it appears, due to the fact that the earth rotates 2.1 degrees in the 8.3 minutes it takes sunlight to reach the earth.

Now, if the sun orbited the earth, I'd say he was right, because if the sun did move 2.1 degrees after emitting the light, the light would be coming from where the sun was 8.3 minutes (and 2.1 degrees) ago. But since the sun still is where it was (relative to the center of the earth) the sun's light will still be coming from where the sun actually is.

So then for months LeGrande and I discussed the 2.1 degrees he claimed - me claiming that there was no 2.1 degrees, and him claiming that there was the 2.1 degrees of apparent displacement.

And he never provided a single scientific evidence or article supporting his claim, either. And he many times called me a liar and other things and never once provided a link to where I lied.

Then, in my efforts to try to get to the bottom of it, I formulated some simple questions which I've been asking him to apply his reasoning to. If he answers the questions in a way that agrees with his previous claims, then it'll be obvious to all that his claims are wrong because they don't agree with science.

If he answers in a way that agrees with science, then he will be contradicting his previous claims - but he doesn't want to contradict his previous claims because I already told him they were wrong and he told me I was lying.

So in the beginning, the issue was whether LeGrande's understanding of physics science was good. Then when he started making claims but not applying his theory to the questions I posed - and when he started calling me a liar, the issue then came to include the subject of LeGrande's veracity. He insists that he's been honest, and that I've been a reprobate and serial liar, and yet he refuses to apply his claims of how things work to the examples I and others have provided.

As a matter of fact, he said that he stands behind all of his posts. But if he stands behind his posts, shouldn't he be willing to apply his theory to my questions? or at least show where he answered them? and should he also not provide evidence when he accuses somebody of being a liar?

Another aspect has been that probably I raised the issue of whether his atheism gave him the freedom to lie as long as he was sure he wouldn't get caught. His response was of course that he's honest.

So now it seems he's refusing to admit that he's wrong, probably because it's obvious that he knows he's wrong and if he admitted he was wrong it would almost be an admission that he was wrong and knew it and refused to admit it for months -- and thus his false good reputation would be ruined, which would shed doubt in others mind when he gave them this absurd idea that all of matter is just waves of nothing and could quite easily have arisen from nothing.

Does that answer your question? If not, let me know, and I'll try again!

Thanks,

-Jesse

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

I’m having a hard time figuring out what your dispute with LeGrande is about. What is the debate about?

Let me give you a very brief executive summary. LeGrande says that the sun is "actually" 8.3 minutes (2.1 degrees) ahead of its apparent position in the sky. This means either (1) the Sun is orbiting the earth at 11,000 km/s, or (2) LeGrande is wrong.

[LeGrande]

I have politely asked mrjesse to quit posting to me or about me. He continues to post to and about me in violation of the terms of use as I understand it.

[mrjesse]

Said LeGrande: I have politely asked mrjesse to quit posting to me or about me. He continues to post to and about me in violation of the terms of use as I understand it.

Replies mrjesse to LeGrande: Where were the terms of use when called me a liar so many times without ever providing a case in point? For example:

You said to me "Your ignorance is virtually limitless."

And you said to me "That should be no problem for a reprobate like yourself : )"

And you said to me "You already broke that word a long time ago. You are a reprobate and reprobates have no honor."

And you said to me "It does make you a reprobate and a serial liar though."

And you said to me "So lets sum you up. You are a liar."

And you said to me "You know that I am correct and that you are a liar."
(And that's not even a complete list..!)
And you never even once produced a link to where I said a lie.

And I have seen you treating other people just the same.

May I suggest that if you can't deal with partaking in discussions with honest truth seeking folks that you either (preferably) learn to do so or don't partake in such discussions?

Thanks,

-Jesse

[Admin Moderator]

The next one of you that posts to us gets a timeout.