Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evidence Disproving Evolution
myself | 10/11/02 | gore3000

Posted on 10/11/2002 9:02:01 PM PDT by gore3000

Evidence Disproving Evolution

The basis of a valid scientific theory is that it be able to explain all the scientific data in the field it is concerned with and that no evidence contradicting the theory be true. This is a harsh test, but one which all legitimate scientific theories must pass. This is a test which the theory of evolution has failed in spades as the following abundantly shows.

Religion and Science:
Access Research Network
Discovery Institute -- Origins -- Creation Science -- Creation/Evolution Sites -- Creation & Evolution Links from the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Club -- True Origins -- Answers in Genesis -- Faith Facts -- Center for Renewal of Science and Culture -- Center for Scientific Creation -- Creation Research Society -- Biblical Creation Society -- Christian Apologetics -- Institute for Creation Research

"It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse;. a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows evolution."
From: Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

Intelligent Design:

Darwin's Mistake by Stu Pullen -- Rebuttals of Criticisms of Darwin's Black Box -- Dembski - Another Way to Detect Design -- Behe, Michael J. - ARN Authors Page -- Leadership U. Designer Universe: Intelligent Design Theory of Origins -- Flagellar Structure and regulated transcription of flagellar genes -- Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max -- Intelligent Design Research Community -- Intelligent Design Theory Resources -- Intelligent Design. The bridge between science and theology. (William Dembski). -- Evolution vs Creation (Intelligent Design) WorldView -- Detailed defense of "Icons" by Wells -- Dembski on Intelligent Design -- Dembski: No Free Lunch -- Behe's Book -- A True Acid Test:Response to Ken Miller : Behe, Michael -- Intelligent Design Articles -- Phillip Johnson's Page -- Ohio Science Standards - IDN

A Moment in History...

That a maker is required for anything that is made is a lesson Sir Isaac Newton was able to teach forcefully to an atheist-scientist friend of his. Sir Isaac had an accomplished artisan fashion for him a small scale model of our solar system which was to be put in a room in Newton?s home when completed. The assignment was finished and installed on a large table. The workman had done a very commendable job, simulating not only the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but also so constructing the model that everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned. It was an interesting, even fascinating work, as you can image, particularly to anyone schooled in the sciences.

Newton's atheist-scientist friend came by for a visit. Seeing the model, he was naturally intrigued, and proceeded to examine it with undisguised admiration for the high quality of the workmanship. "My! What an exquisite thing this is!? he exclaimed. "Who made it?? Paying little attention to him, Sir Isaac answered, "Nobody."

Stopping his inspection, the visitor turned and said: "Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this. Newton, enjoying himself immensely no doubt, replied in a still more serious tone. "Nobody. What you see just happened to assume the form it now has." "You must think I am a fool!? the visitor retorted heatedly, "Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I would like to know who he is."

Newton then spoke to his friend in a polite yet firm way: "This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?"

From: Sir Isaac Newton Solar System Story, "The Truth: God or evolution?" by Marshall and Sandra Hall

Biology Disproving Evolution

Alternative Splicing -- Scientists snap first 3-D pictures of the "heart" of the transcription machine -- Molecular Biology Book -- Cell Interactions in Development -- Oldest Living Plant -- Fruit Flies Speak Up -- The Nature of Nurture: How the environment shapes our genes -- Nanobes (Nanobacteria) are crystals -- Regulation of the Cell Cycle 2001 Nobel Prize -- Amniota - Problems with the Philogeny of -- Basic Principles of Genetics Mendel's Genetics -- Photosynthesis -- Population Variability and Evolutionary Genetics -- Fossil Hominids mitochondrial DNA -- Genetics Glossary AB -- Genomics and Its Impact on Medicine and Society 2001 Primer -- The molecular clock -- Cell Signaling: The Inside Story on MAP Kinases -- Protein Synthesis -- Watching genes at work -- Cell snapshot spots cancer -- Development protein atracts and then repels muscle tissue -- Evolution of the Genomes of Mammals and Birds -- Gene Silencing - Study shows plants inherit traits from more than gene sequence alone -- Gene silencing - Environmental Stress reactions -- Bio-Tech Info - Gene Silencing Articles -- Advances In "Micro" RNA Exploring Process Of Life -- Monkeys and Men - gene expression -- Chimps, Humans and Retroviruses -- Gene activity in human brain sets us apart from chimps -- Pros and Cons of Inbreeding -- Inbreeding and desth of species -No Need to Isolate Genetics -- How Organisms Protect Themselves Against Transposons -- Uses of transposons -- Cell Suicide -- Protein Transforms Sedentary Muscles Into Exercised Muscles, Researchers Report -- Gene insertion in Transgenic Animals -- "50,000 Genes, and We Know Them All (Almost)"

While evolution continues to tell us that species transform themselves in a simple almost magical manner, modern biology shows this not to be the case. Organisms are so complex that for them to transform themselves into different ones would require a theory of COevolution. The random processes assumed by evolutionary theory deny such a possibility.

Genes are just information encoded along a long string of the chemical DNA; they cannot do anything themselves.
David Baltimore, Nobel Prize Winner

DNAProteing
Synthesis

Mutations:

A Scientific Defense of a Creationist Position on Evolution -- Evolutionist View of Evolutionary Biology -- Creation, Selection, And Variation -- Population Genetics, Haldane's Dilemma and the Neutral Theory of Evolution -- Haldane Rebuttal -- Point_Mutations -- Inbreeding and Population Genetics -- Introduction to Evolutionary Biology -- Neutral Mutations -- Computational Geneticists Revisit A Mystery In Evolution -- Mutations - organisms fixes them itself -- Mutations

Funny thing about mutations, it is almost impossible for them to spread throughout a species. In addition, mutations which either transform a species into another or which add any kind of greater complexity have not been seen in spite of the daily experimentation going on in thousands of research labs daily.

Junk DNA:

The Human Genome Project -- Junk DNA in man and mouse -- Junk DNA - Over 95 percent of DNA has largely unknown function -- JUNK dna and transpositions -- Junk DNA Tips Off Tumor Comeback -- Transgenics, Junk DNA, Evolution and Risks: Reading Through Rows

Evolutionists are always making assumptions. They assumed that the tonsils and the appendix were remnants of previous species from which humans had evolved and were totally useless. They were wrong about that. When the human genome was sequenced and it was found that only 5% of it was used in genes they immediately assumed that the 95% not in genes was 'junk'. They were wrong again of course. The now called 'non-coding' DNA is the source of what makes humans tick and a marvel of creation in itself.

Abiogenesis:

RNA World: A Critique -- Evolution and the Origin of Life -- Thermodynamics and the Origin of Life - Part II -- The Mystery of Life's Origin -- Message Theory/Remine -- Bruce Lipton, Insight Into Cellular Consciousness

There is a tremendous amount of proof against abiogenesis. First of all is Pasteur's proof that life does not come from inert matter (and this was of course at one time the prediction of materialists). Then came the discovery of DNA and the chemical basis of organisms. This poses a totally insurmountable problem to abiogenesis. The smallest living cells has a DNA string of some one million base pairs long and some 600 genes, even cutting this number by a quarter as the smallest possible living cell would give us a string of some 250,000 base pairs of DNA. It is important to note here that DNA can be arranged in any of the four basic codes equally well, there is no chemical or other necessity to the sequence. The chances of such an arrangement arising are therefore 4^250,000. Now the number of atoms in the universe is said to be about 4^250. I would therefore call 4^250,000 an almost infinitely impossible chance (note that the supposition advanced that perhaps it was RNA that produced the first life has this same problem).

The problem though is even worse than that. Not only do you need two (2) strings of DNA perfectly matched to have life, but you also need a cell so that the DNA code can get the material to sustain that life. It is therefore a chicken and egg problem, you cannot have life without DNA (or RNA if one wants to be generous) but one also has to have the cell itself to provide the nutrients for the sustenance of the first life. Add to this problem that for the first life to have been the progenitor of all life on earth, it necessarily needs to have been pretty much the same as all life now on earth is, otherwise it could not have been the source of the life we know. Given all these considerations, yes, abiogenesis is impossible.

Darwin and His Theory:

Charles Darwin - The Truth -- Darwin's Racism -- Darwi n's Family -- Malthus and evolutionists -- Darwin's Environment -- Darwin, Racism, Evil -- Ascent of Racism -- Talk.Origins and the Darwin/Hitler Test -- Darwin's finches Evolution in real time -- Effects of the 1998 El Niño on Darwins finches on Daphne -- Punctuated Equilibrium at Twenty -- Homology A Concept in Crisis. Origins & Design 182. Wells, Jonathan -- Darwin's Creation Myth -- David Berlinsky 'The Deniable Darwin

Evolutionists try to paint Darwin as a quiet scientist working hard on writing his theory. However, this is a totally false statement. Yes, he was a recluse. However, he was neither a scintist not a very nice person as the following quote shows:

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

From: Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man", Chapter V.

Evolutionist Censorship:

Scientists Censored for Publicly Exposing Flaws in Evolution - Suite101.com -- Science and Fairness -- Duane Gish Responds to Joyce Arthur's Critique -- Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals? -- Censorship of Information on Origins -- Professor Rigid on Evolution (must "believe" to get med school rec)

Evolutionists almost since the start have tried to silence opponents. While they constantly claim to be scientists, it seems that instead of following the principles of science - questioning, discussion, and challenging of existing theories, they follow the principles of ideology - silencing and destroying opponents.

Species Disproving Evolution:
Morphology of the Archaea -- Humans Are Three Percent Puffer Fish -- JGI Fugu v2.0 Home -- Cyanobacteria not changed in 4 billion years -- Platypus -- Platypus Web Sites -- Eosimias ankle bone proves human descent! -- euglena -- Textbook Fraud: Hyracotherium dawn horse eohippus, mesohippus, meryhippus -- - On the Alleged Dinosaurian Ancestry of Birds - -- Fruit Flies Disprove Darwin -- Hymenopimecis Wasp: Parasite's web of death -- Haploid False Spider Mites -- Cambrian Explosion: Biology's Big Bang -- Cambrian Explosion: Origin of the Phyla -- Kangaroo and platypus not related Top: Euglena, Hymenopimesis Wasp, Butterfly, Platypus
Bottom: Bat, Fugu, Cambrian species

Various Topics:

A Critique of '29 Evidences for Macroevolution' -- Blind Atheist -- Freeper Views on Origins -- Freeper Views on Origins - Patriarchs -- Creation/Evolution Debate -- Homology -- 15 Answers to John Rennie and SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN's Nonsense (by Bert Thompson and Brad Harrub> -- Sir Karl Popper "Science as Falsification," 1963 -- Pope John Paul II: Truth Cannot Contradict Truth (Statement on Evolution - 1996) -- Evolution Shams -- A Critique of PBS's Evolution -- Evolution of a Creationist -- Evolution, Creation, and Thermodynamics -- God, Humanity and the Cosmos Book Section Evolutionary Biology and Theology -- The Revolution Against Evolution -- Sexual Reproduction A Continuing Mystery to Evolutionists -- Splifford FAQ (How talk.origins and sci.bio.evolution really work -- Mathematics vs Evolution -- Evolution vs Logic -- Natural Selection an Agency of Stasis, not Change -- Evolution as Anti-Science -- Critique of Gould -- Radiocarbon dating things which should not radiocarbon date... -- Evolution or Christianity -- Funding for Evolution -- Scientists find biological reality behind religious experience [Free Republic] -- Doctors increasingly find introducing prayer helps calm patients and speeds recovery -- The healing power of prayer. -- There is power in prayer [Free Republic] -- Micro vs Macroevolution -- Science Design Kit -- 50 Reasons to Leave Evolutionism -- The Evolution of Truth -- Fossils and dating -- - Talk.Origins: Deception by Omission -- Talk Origins - FAQ or Fiction? -- McCluskey, E. S. --- Which Vertebrates Make Vitamin C? -- Vitamin c Pseudogene -- Snapshots of God -- Critics of Evolution - Book Reviews

While evolution claims to explain the descent of one species from another, it has never been able to do so. The original explanation for how evolution transforms species, natural selection, has things backwards. Natural selection kills, it does not create anything. For evolution to be true it needed to propose a creative force which would have been able to add new traits, new functions to the simplest creatures and gradually transform them into more complex ones. The original proposal by Darwin, the melding of features from the parents, did not answer this problem, nor does the more modern version of the exchange of genetic information that occurs in procreation. Such methods do not add any information either, they just reshuffle the information which already exists in the species. Clearly this cannot be the source of increased complexity either.

With the re-discovery of genetics in the 20th Century, the Darwinists finally accepted the incorrectness of the melding theory and proposed mutations as the agent of creation of new information. They ran into the problem that with individuals receiving half their genes from each parent and half the genes of each parent being passed on to the progeny, the chances of a new mutation, even one which might be favorable, had not only a very small chance of surviving more than a few generations, but also had an almost impossible chance of spreading throughout a species. They therefore proposed that most mutations were neutral ones and by gradual accumulation they would change the species. This explanation did not even solve the problem of how difficult it was for any mutation to survive, let alone spread throughout a species.

The discovery of DNA made the above possibility, already quite unlikely and totally unproven, just about totally impossible. The high complexity of a gene and more importantly experiments showing that changing even one of the thousand DNA bases of a gene are likely to destroy functioning completely and are extremely unlikely to enhance it, presented another serious problem for evolution. This was 'solved' by proposing that gene duplication would create new functions without destroying necessary functioning. Of course, as before, this was only theory and no experimental proof of it was found to support it. The same problem of it being hard to change a gene favorably applied to such genes, the only explanatory gain was that incorrect mutations would not be deadly. Even then, this was insufficient explanation for the transformation of species. Similar genes, which are fairly common, only accomplish similar functions. The vast changes required for complete species transformation, are unexplainable without the creation of totally new genes.

With the discovery that genes themselves are just factories and are controlled by other DNA in the organism, and that a single gene often produces many proteins, this explanation was rendered inadequate. Now a new function, which was already known to most likely require more than a single new gene, would require a whole complex of DNA outside the gene to make it work when and if needed. This makes the evolutionary explanation of random, non-directed species change totally untenable and indeed biologists are beginning to call the developmental process of an organism a program. Like all programs, those for life are not made at random.



TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: crevolist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 951-984 next last
Let's see the evolutionists say again that there is no evidence against their theory.
1 posted on 10/11/2002 9:02:01 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tribune7; f.Christian; AndrewC; Phaedrus; Heartlander; Terriergal; betty boop; Alamo-Girl
Bunp for one side.
2 posted on 10/11/2002 9:05:13 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Does this appear on a webpage somewhere? I'd be interested in bookmarking that, if so. FWIW, evolutionary science has moved well beyond Darwin in much the same way that physics have moved well beyond Newton and astronomy has moved well beyond Copernicus and mathematics have moved well beyond Euclid. Disputing a particular statement of Darwin's does not challenge evolutionary science in those cases where evolutionary science has already modified that into an unrecognizable form.
3 posted on 10/11/2002 9:05:41 PM PDT by AntiGuv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; VadeRetro; jennyp; Stultis; Nebullis; BMCDA
...and a bump for the other side.
4 posted on 10/11/2002 9:08:06 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Does this appear on a webpage somewhere?

Nope, this is an original article by myself. You can bookmark this page the same as anything else on the web. In fact, it is less likely to dissappear here than on many web sites.

I put Darwin's quote on the top for reference. While evolutionists constantly change their statements, the basis of the theory remains the same and evolution essentially stands and falls by Darwin's statement at the beginning.

5 posted on 10/11/2002 9:14:20 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: gore3000
bump for many hours of read.
7 posted on 10/11/2002 9:18:19 PM PDT by Lokibob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elbucko
The only evidence you display is that morons like you are capable of evolving backwards into their own slime.

I wish I would have bet as to when the first attack by an evolutionist would come. The thing that surprises me, though, is that it would be without any substance whatsoever so early in the debate. Congrats, elbucko, you have set the tone for the rest of your buddies.

Gore spent a considerable amount of time bringing something tangible to the table, and the above is all you can muster? Sad.

MM

8 posted on 10/11/2002 9:19:51 PM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Looks like no more Mr. Nice Guy.
9 posted on 10/11/2002 9:20:24 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Indeed, you have shown that the simplest currently existing cell type has never formed itself spontaneously in a laboratory setting, and isn’t likely ever to do so. But if a self-replicating cell of a simpler type can exist (perhaps a lipid membrane enclosing a few protein or RNA fragments, 1/1000 the complexity of the simplest currently feasible cell, and the “laboratory,” instead of ~1 cubic meter is instead the world’s oceans (1,370,000,000 cubic kilometers, or 1,370,000,000,000,000,000 cubic meters), and the “experiment,” instead of taking, say, 10 years, takes 4,000,000,000 years, then the process becomes 5.48E+29 (548,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) times more likely to produce life.

Once that is done, you are essentially left with the claim that order can’t increase in a closed system (e.g., the whole watch or solar system model versus life metaphor). This is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. That law, however, only applies in a closed system. Since the Earth is not a closed system, but is constantly bathed in powerful light energy from the Sun, the 2nd Law does not apply. And indeed, it’s commonsensical that life would not exist without the Sun.

So you have proven little, except that religious fundamentalism is a continuing embarrassment to thinking conservatives.

10 posted on 10/11/2002 9:23:54 PM PDT by DWPittelli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Thanks for the heads up!
11 posted on 10/11/2002 9:25:47 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
"explain all the scientific data in the field it is concerned with and that no evidence contradicting the theory be true."

God created the world in 6 days - the theory

The universe is 12 billion years old - the evidence (from Hubble)

Therefore by your criteria God does not exist. However, I believe both in evolution and God, and in the nose on the front of my plain face. So, I think you are hallucinating.

12 posted on 10/11/2002 9:29:06 PM PDT by FastCoyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Ah, ok, thanks. Easy enough. I'd like to look into much of this material, but there's no way I'll have the time before next weekend. FWIW, I won't likely change my stance favoring evolution in any case, but I certainly find alternate arguments of interest. I don't operate on the assumption that one discards a scientific model with a preponderance of support simply because of minor objections. I ascribe to the idea of modifying the model to account for whatever evidence might require further exegesis. Moreover, there's simply no viable alternative to the evolutionary model or something very much like that which I'm aware of. In order to discard the evolutionary model, then one must provide an alternative model which explains the available empirical evidence in a superior fashion.

I can also tolerate a greater level of perceptual uncertainty than most seem capable of. Even assuming that I accepted the impossibility of abiogenesis as currently conceived, then I would simply say that something comparable had to have taken place at some point in the past that remains as yet unexplained. The fact that no one has been brilliant enough to figure that out does not alter the fact that it must have taken place. Moreover, it is fallacious to assume that something which does not readily occur in the present environment (to our knowledge) did not readily occur in some past environment. Finally, however low the plausibility, it does not alter the fact that a particular event occurred nonetheless when the consequences of that event are self-evident.

13 posted on 10/11/2002 9:31:15 PM PDT by AntiGuv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
Gore spent a considerable amount of time bringing something tangible to the table,..

I beg your pardon, ostentation is not tangibility. Convolution does not clarify. From what I can see of the presentation, it is wordy, poorly organized and senseless obfuscation.

God is always elegant and simple in His miracle of Creation, even to the use of evolution to achieve the divine.

14 posted on 10/11/2002 9:32:39 PM PDT by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Let's see the evolutionists say again that there is no evidence against their theory.

What, pray tell, is your theory? That all existing species were made in their current form, that fossils are tricks the devil made to fool us, that evolution in historical times (e.g., wild grasses to wheat, wolves to many specialized forms of dogs, such as the ultra-sensitive-smelling bloodhound) is trivial and could never produce anything "truly" new even though great changes have been made in 5,000 years, and the earth is 1,000,000 times older than that? (Sort of like how the continents, although they move an inch a year, could never actually drift across the globe?)

Is there no evidence against such theories?

And what exactly does ad hominem comment on the racism of Darwin (a racism expressed by virtually every educated person in the first half of the 19th century) have to do with the accuracy of his scientific-historical theory?

15 posted on 10/11/2002 9:33:19 PM PDT by DWPittelli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DWPittelli
"Once that is done, you are essentially left with the claim that order can’t increase in a closed system"

Could you tell us where we can read more about the process how information comes from no where? I am particularly interested in the formulas that says order increases in an open system. (just because you think you have an "open system" doesn't mean that order arises from nothing)

(Information needs a code, and a method to read the information - that requires intelligence and design. What is that formula for random chance producing a code and a means to read it?)

How about a link to where we can read about abiogenesis and the success in the lab in producing life from non life.
(ie. I can smash a bug and have all of the components, in the proper proportion to produce life... so how many billion years are needed when that bug reassembles itself and flies away?)
16 posted on 10/11/2002 9:39:54 PM PDT by Dr Warmoose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: elbucko
Nice mouth ...
17 posted on 10/11/2002 9:41:30 PM PDT by Phaedrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DWPittelli
And what exactly does ad hominem comment on the racism of Darwin (a racism expressed by virtually every educated person in the first half of the 19th century) have to do with the accuracy of his scientific-historical theory?

Nothing at all, but if you hang around a bit, you might get to see the gore3000 lecture on Why It Is Wrong To Smear People Who Aren't Around To Defend Themselves (© - gore3000, patent pending)...

18 posted on 10/11/2002 9:42:47 PM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
HTML tip - red anchor text on a red background is a bad idea. You're welcome.
19 posted on 10/11/2002 9:45:52 PM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DWPittelli
Indeed, you have shown that the simplest currently existing cell type has never formed itself spontaneously in a laboratory setting, and isn’t likely ever to do so.

No, the argument is much deeper than that. I am not just speaking of a laboratory setting, I am speaking of almost any setting at all. It is the question of millions of monkeys trying to write a new Shakesperian play. Give them trillions of years, they still will not write anything like that.

But if a self-replicating cell of a simpler type can exist (perhaps a lipid membrane enclosing a few protein or RNA fragments, 1/1000 the complexity of the simplest currently feasible cell, and the “laboratory,” instead of ~1 cubic meter is instead the world’s oceans (1,370,000,000 cubic kilometers, or 1,370,000,000,000,000,000 cubic meters), and the “experiment,” instead of taking, say, 10 years, takes 4,000,000,000 years, then the process becomes 5.48E+29 (548,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) times more likely to produce life.

Well, you have several problems with the statement above. The biggest is that you cannot have a living organism which is that simple. Let's look at some of the absolute essentials:
1. you need a system for replication, this is not so easy as it sounds. Viri have to 'borrow' the replicating system of true living things.
2. you need an excretory system - to dispose of waste.
3. you need a nutrition system - and this is where it really gets to be impossible. For nourishing a living thing you need either to produce your own nourishment as plants do or eat other living things as animals do. Problem with the first life is that you do not have any other creatures to eat so you have to make your own. This requires photosynthesis or chemosynthesis. Either one is a very complex process requiring many genes some of which are quite complex.

In fact the number of DNA base pairs I gave is more favorable than most scientists would postulate. The smallest living things have some 1,000,000 DNA base pairs and some 600 genes. Very few scientists would believe that anything even a quarter that size would have the capability of replicating and providing its own nourishment system. So as far as science goes, your proposition is impossible.

20 posted on 10/11/2002 9:47:27 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
It is time, Mr. gore, to add some spice to the stew. Here is Gertrude Himmelfarb once more, decimating poor Darwin. There follows an except from her Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, Copyright 1959, Doubleday. The Times Literary Supplement had this to say about the work:

A thorough and masterly book punctuated with a delicate sense of humor ... Until he has read, marked, learnt and inwardly digested this authoritative volume, no one should presume henceforth to speak on Darwin and Darwinism.

hmmm...

We begin at page 333 of the Elephant Paperback edition published in 1996:

"...For his essential method was neither observing nor the more prosaic mode of scientific reasoning, but a peculiarly imaginative, inventive mode of argument.

"In was this that Whewell objected to in the Origin:

For it is assumed that the mere possibility of imagining a series of steps of transition from one condition of organs to another, is to be accepted as a reason for believing that such transition has taken place. And next, that such a possibility being thus imagined, we may assume an unlimited number of generations for the transition to take place in, and that this indefinite time may extinguish all doubt that the transitions really have taken place.

"What Darwin was doing, in effect, was creating a 'logic of possibility'. Unlike conventional logic, where the compound of possibilities results not in a greater possibility, or probability, but in a lesser one, the logic of the Origin was one in which possibilities were assumed to add up to probability.

"Like many revolutionaries, Darwin embarked upon this revolutionary enterprise in the most innocent and reasonable spirit. He started out by granting the hypothetical nature of the theory and went on to defend the use of hypotheses in science, such hypotheses being justified if they explained a sufficiently large number of facts. His own theory, he continued, was 'rendered in some degree probable' by one set of facts and could be tested and confirmed by another -- among which he included the geological succession of organic beings. It was because it 'explained' both of these bodies of facts that it was removed from the status of mere hypothesis and elevated to the rank of 'well-grounded theory'. This procedure, by which one of the major difficulties of the theory was made to bear witness in its favor, can only be accounted for by a confusion in the meaning of 'explain' -- between the sense in which facts are 'explained' by a theory and the sense in which difficulties may be 'explained away'. It is the difference between compliant facts which lend themselves to the theory and refractory ones which do not and can only be brought into submission by a more or less plausible excuse. By confounding the two, both orders of explanation, both orders of fact, were entered on the same side of the ledger, the credit side. Thus the 'difficulties' he had so candidly confessed to were converted into assets.

"This technique for the conversion of possibilities into probabilities and liabilities into assets was the more effective the longer the process went on. In the chapter entitled 'Difficulties on Theory' the solution of each difficulty in turn came more easily to Darwin as he triumphed over -- not simply disposed of -- the preceding one. The reader was put under a constantly mounting obligation; if he accepted one explanation, he was committed to accept the next. Having first agreed to the theory in cases where only some of the transitional stages were missing, the reader was expected to acquiesce in those cases where most of the stages were missing, and finally in those where there was no evidence of stages at all. Thus, by the time of the problem of the eye was under consideration, Darwin was insisting that anyone who had come with him so far could not rightly hesitate to go further. In the same spirit, he rebuked those naturalists who held that while some reputed species were varieties rather than real species, other species were real. Only the 'blindness of preconceived opinion', he held, could make them balk at going the whole way -- as if it was not precisely the propriety of going the whole way that was at issue.

"As possibilities were promoted into probabilities, and the probabilities into certainty, so ignorance itself was raised to a position only once removed from certain knowledge. When imagination exhausted itself and Darwin could devise no hypothesis to explain away a difficulty, he resorted to the blanket assurance that we were too ignorant of the ways of nature to know why one event occurred rathar than another, and hence ignorant of the explanation that would reconcile the facts to his theory..." And so on ...

Darwin was a masterly sophist, but a poor scientist.

21 posted on 10/11/2002 9:48:01 PM PDT by Phaedrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: general_re
HTML tip - red anchor text on a red background is a bad idea.

You are right. Thanks. Unfortunately it is too late to change it now. Will try to remember in the future.

22 posted on 10/11/2002 9:49:50 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Dr Warmoose
(ie. I can smash a bug and have all of the components, in the proper proportion to produce life... so how many billion years are needed when that bug reassembles itself and flies away?)

Never! All you have is THAT smashed bug. That bug was the only time those molecules will be assembled into THAT bug in the history of the universe. You have altered your own experiment by your own interference.

Better yet, if we could microwave that bug so it weighed 200#'s and smashed you to death. How many billions of years until you reassemble yourself and fly away?

23 posted on 10/11/2002 9:50:51 PM PDT by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Now I know where Al and Jesse came from.
24 posted on 10/11/2002 9:50:52 PM PDT by BulletBrasDotNet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: general_re
bump for later reading
25 posted on 10/11/2002 9:52:08 PM PDT by truth defector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Dr Warmoose
Could you tell us where we can read more about the process how information comes from no where?

I'm uncertain what the relevance of this might be. A process does not require any information beyond what is already inherent in the process. Much the same as a hurricane assembles itself via a given sequence of events (before going on to dissipate) so do higher forms of life assemble themselves via given sequences of events. The required information is already an inherent part of the process.

I am particularly interested in the formulas that says order increases in an open system.

Well, one of those appears to be the evolutionary model - and it manages to say that admirably well.

How about a link to where we can read about abiogenesis and the success in the lab in producing life from non life.

The fact that something happens even under the most extraordinary of circumstances does not mean it never happens. Even if there's only a 10 billion to 1 chance of abiogenesis at any given moment in a particular environment that simply means that you would expect to see it in only 1 out of 10 billion examples of that environment. In that event, whatever sentient beings arose from the 10 billion to 1 chance would a priori find themselves the product of that most extraordinary of circumstances.

(ie. I can smash a bug and have all of the components, in the proper proportion to produce life... so how many billion years are needed when that bug reassembles itself and flies away?)

I can smash a diamond or an obsidian into dust in the proper proportion to reproduce a diamond or an obsidian. Regardless, the likelihood of those dust particles ever reassembling themselves into a diamond or an obsidian are exceedingly dim. This does not establish that they did not do so, however, under the original circumstances while undergoing the initial process.

26 posted on 10/11/2002 9:52:13 PM PDT by AntiGuv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
FYI - The link for the Access Research Network in no good
27 posted on 10/11/2002 9:52:49 PM PDT by Texas_Jarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
I wish I would have bet as to when the first attack by an evolutionist would come. The thing that surprises me, though, is that it would be without any substance whatsoever so early in the debate.

It does not surprise me. Evolutionists are fast thinkers - they know when they are stuck with no reply.

28 posted on 10/11/2002 9:54:35 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Phaedrus
Nice mouth .

Thanks. A compliment, I'm sure.

29 posted on 10/11/2002 9:56:46 PM PDT by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: elbucko
A compliment, I'm sure.

Not quite ...

30 posted on 10/11/2002 9:58:08 PM PDT by Phaedrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
These things happen - I once went live with a webpage that I designed that, everywhere it was supposed to have a link, it just said "link" and didn't actually go anywhere. ;)
31 posted on 10/11/2002 9:58:47 PM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Dang gore3000, I have no reply to your original postings.

Keep up the great work, since you have been my absolute best source as an example of false science.

This one was absolutly fantastic, and I am loving it!

32 posted on 10/11/2002 9:59:20 PM PDT by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Thank you for your thought-provoking post. However, your premise mis-states the aim of the "scientific method."

The basis of a valid scientific theory is that it be able to explain all the scientific data in the field it is concerned with and that no evidence contradicting the theory be true. This is a harsh test, but one which all legitimate scientific theories must pass. This is a test which the theory of evolution has failed in spades as the following abundantly shows.

A better understanding of the scientific method and scientific terminology might lead you to rethink your rash statements. A "theory" is a conceptual framework. A "hypothesis" is a working assumption. There are four basics steps in the scientific method:
(1) Observation and description of a process, phenomenon, or set of phenomena.
(2) Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the processes or phenomena.
(3) Use of the hypothesis to predict the existance of other processes, phenomena, or additional observable events.
(4) Tests of the predictions by other observors or experiments.

The so-called "theory of evolution" is actually a complex interaction of several theories, observations, descriptions, and phenomena. Naturally, the quality and quantity of the evidence is key in developing the conceptual framework. Unfortunately, the fossil record is much like a 1,000 piece jigsaw puzzle. Today, paleontologists are trying to piece together and describe the nature of the puzzle when they only have a few dozens of pieces. Even if they have solid assumptions about what the puzzle should resemble, they must, through the scientific process, test and re-test their hypotheses.

If the "present is the key to the past" (uniformitarianism), then a proper understanding of present-day biological and biochemical processes might provide some guidance to understanding how those processes might have operated in the past. I would say our absolute understanding of these processes is in its formative stage. I would expect changes in evolutionary theory to occur all the time.

"Evolution" is such a complex framework, there is no scientist who will claim that it is an undeniable fact. In fact, most geo- and bio-scientists expect new discoveries to modify and add to the existing knowledge base. The scientific knowledge of biological processes has grown by leaps and bounds over the past fifty years. The same could be said about the status of the earth sciences.

Finding out what "went wrong" to a scientist is as important as the development of the original hypothesis. The new data allows the modification and re-casting of the hypothesis for re-testing. That is what the scientific method is about.

The mere suggestion of an alternative or supplementary hypothesis does not, in and of itself, disprove the first hypothesis. Factually disproving a part of a complex framework does not in and of itself invalidate the entire framework.

It is not my intention to be part of a flame war online, as most of these creation science threads become. But, like any good debater, if you wish to engage in a debate, at least formulate a premise with fewer holes than a round of swiss cheese.

33 posted on 10/11/2002 10:01:02 PM PDT by capitan_refugio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
I can see that watching this thread is going to be quite interesting! Kudos for bringing all your information together and kicking it off!

If there were a constructive criticism I would offer to both sides of the evolution v creation debate it would be to never "protest too much." IMHO, the people who are only half-listening (or never click on links) will take particular note of excessive protests and presume to the contrary.

34 posted on 10/11/2002 10:02:22 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Hunble
...you have been my absolute best source as an example of false science.

That's funny - I was thinking exactly the same thing...

35 posted on 10/11/2002 10:02:53 PM PDT by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: FastCoyote
Therefore by your criteria God does not exist. However, I believe both in evolution and God,

It is interesting that when shown scientific evidence against their theory evolutionists start attacking religion and calling it scientifically false. Shows to me that their belief in evolution is not based on science (since they are unwilling to defend it on scientific grounds). Instead their adherence to evolution is clearly based on a materialistic/atheistic view of life derived from hatred at any sort of superior being. You and your friends can believe as you like. However, if you cannot defend your theory on scientific grounds, then at least be honest enough to admit that it is a religious belief totally based on personal predilections.

36 posted on 10/11/2002 10:07:58 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: FastCoyote
Therefore by your criteria God does not exist. However, I believe both in evolution and God, and in the nose on the front of my plain face.

Your words are lost on gore3000. Gore3000 has created a false dichotomy where you either believe that evolution is true AND you are an atheist or you are a Biblical literalist. Facts and reality are simply inconviences to be ignored.
37 posted on 10/11/2002 10:11:32 PM PDT by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: FastCoyote
Other theory: God created the world in 6 days, but he did it 12 billion years ago.

Why does every one assume that all who disbelieve evolution are young earth creationists?

God creating the world in 6 days has no bearing on WHEN he did so.
38 posted on 10/11/2002 10:13:58 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
"Evolutionists are fast thinkers - they know when they are stuck with no reply."

I dare say gore3k, that you threw down the first gauntlet at post # 1 with:

"Let's see the evolutionists say again that there is no evidence against their theory".

There is no rebuttal to superstition.

39 posted on 10/11/2002 10:14:09 PM PDT by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Here is where you will find the substance. Your side lost this battle over a century ago. This is beyond old news, it's like arguing the earth is still flat or that the four elements are earth air fire and water. Deal with it.
40 posted on 10/11/2002 10:14:33 PM PDT by Nateman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Just make sure that you watch what you say. Gore3000 has been known to take FReeper's statements out of context to divorce them from their original meaning so that he can badmouth them for things that they never really stated.
41 posted on 10/11/2002 10:15:41 PM PDT by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: general_re
That's funny - I was thinking exactly the same thing...

Hey, what else can I say? As I donate my time helping out the science teachers at the High School across the street from my home, Gore2000 is my best example of false science.

Seriously, this is classic and very well done.

42 posted on 10/11/2002 10:15:43 PM PDT by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Nateman
Take a poll of FR......no doubt most do not believe evolution.
43 posted on 10/11/2002 10:19:07 PM PDT by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
?????

Is this some kind of joke??

Just where did oil come from?? God just made a bunch of it and stuck it underground?? Then made cars out of thin air to burn it to screw up the planet?

This means the fossils discovered are what? More crap that he buried to confuse us?

Does God understand the term specious argument?? And no, I did not have time to quit my job, stay home and read the crap that you took so much time to assemble. I have a 3 pound dog. Ringling Brothers has a huge elephant. Basically the same thing comes out of their butts; however the quantity doesn’t alter the composition. BS is BS.


Stay safe; stay armed.


44 posted on 10/11/2002 10:19:35 PM PDT by Eaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: general_re
I am particularly interested in the formulas that says order increases in an open system.

Well, one of those appears to be the evolutionary model - and it manages to say that admirably well.

That's circular reasoning at its worst. You managed to go in a complete circle inside of one sentence.

How about a link to where we can read about abiogenesis and the success in the lab in producing life from non life.

The fact that something happens even under the most extraordinary of circumstances does not mean it never happens.

Yes, and it is possible that the sun could rise in the west tomorrow. However, you would be foolish to accept such speculation as fact.

45 posted on 10/11/2002 10:20:29 PM PDT by montanus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
I don't operate on the assumption that one discards a scientific model with a preponderance of support simply because of minor objections.

I think the objections to evolution are indeed quite strong. I will take a living organism's evidence of design over a few bones everytime. The big problem with evolution is that there is no 'how' to it. Each time evolutionists have proposed how it occurs, science has come along and thoroughly disproved it. One must at some point start saying 'a theory that is wrong so often cannot be correct'.

In order to discard the evolutionary model, then one must provide an alternative model which explains the available empirical evidence in a superior fashion.

I do not think that is correct. It is better to discard a false theory than to adhere to it. False theories lead to false conclusions and this is never good. However, there is a theory (and there has been since before Darwin) to explain life. It is called intelligent design and it is well explained by the little story from Newton above.

I can also tolerate a greater level of perceptual uncertainty than most seem capable of. Even assuming that I accepted the impossibility of abiogenesis as currently conceived, then I would simply say that something comparable had to have taken place at some point in the past that remains as yet unexplained.

Well, you can believe as you like of course but to hold the above belief you have to admit that you are forcing your theory on the facts instead of deriving it from the facts as it is proper. Therefore you cannot claim a scientific basis for a belief in abiogenesis.

Finally, however low the plausibility, it does not alter the fact that a particular event occurred nonetheless when the consequences of that event are self-evident.

Well, no one is arguing that life did not arise sometime in the past. The question is whether it was divinely wrought or it arose by chance. All scientific evidence is on the side of divine creation.

46 posted on 10/11/2002 10:20:36 PM PDT by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Decisions, decisions, in which should I place my belief, the scientific method, or an intangible, magical, omnipotent being, on a cosmic ego trip?
47 posted on 10/11/2002 10:20:55 PM PDT by Mensch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
However, if you cannot defend your theory on scientific grounds, then at least be honest enough to admit that it is a religious belief totally based on personal predilections.

Tritely clever, but just. The sophist's tactic of turning the basis of his argument against his opponent. It is you that is professing a religious absolute, your opponents propose only a theoretical likely hood.

48 posted on 10/11/2002 10:23:42 PM PDT by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
The amount of faith one needs to buy into evolution so far outweighs the amount of faith required to acknowledge one's Creator that it is unfathomable...
49 posted on 10/11/2002 10:24:58 PM PDT by ApesForEvolution
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Facts and reality are simply inconviences to be ignored.

Well said.

50 posted on 10/11/2002 10:26:13 PM PDT by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 951-984 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson