Science Disproves Evolution

[jerryR34]

 

 

Hi Jerry.

I find your comment very ironic. you accuse me of not understanding anything about evolution, but you offered nothing to corroborate it at all.

 

take care.

 

John

I asked you to explain your understanding of evolution.  That would tell me a lot about how much I should value your opinon of the topic. Your post and my experience with creationists leads me to believe they have not delved deeply into the topic.  Could you give me some bullets on what you think the theory of evoulution espouses?  That would give us a starting point for debate.

 

If you know the creationist have less knowledge than you on this subject why are you here debating with them?

 

If creationists have all the answers, why debate those who think evolution is the best answer for speciation?  Why start a thread that says "Science disproves evolution"?

Edited September 3, 2014 by jerryR34

[jerryR34]

 

 

 

 

 

===========================================================================

 

1) COSMIC EVOLUTION                                -    The origin of time, space, and matter

2) CHEMICLE EVOLUTION                            -    The origin of higher elements from hydrogen

3) STELLAR AND PLANETARY EVOLITION -    The origin of stars and planets

4) ORGANIC EVOLUTION                              -   The origin of life from non life

5) MACRO EVOLUTION                                 -    Changing from one animal into another

6) MICRO EVOLUTION                                  -     Variations from kinds

 

 

How about we stick to biological evolution?  In biological evolution, 5 and 6 are one and the same.

 

 

Equivocation (Fallacy): since 1980 @ the very least....

 

Chicago Field Museum of Natural History Conference on 'Macroevolution'....

"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution.  At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No."

Roger Lewin PhD, Science(Vol.201(4472):883-887,1980.

 

 

Moreover:

 

‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’

Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.

 

So, Please....

 

DNA/RNA/"Functional Proteins" NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from nucleotides and aminos, respectively.

It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.

That's just the Hardware!

 

DNA "CODE"/Software------------------Design(Intelligence)--------------------Designer!

 

To refute:

 

1. Prove that the Genetic CODE is not....."CODE"/Software. OR....

2. Prove that Atoms/Molecules have Sentience and Intelligence.

 

if we go off on too many tangents, it gets to be a mess.

 

I agree, especially for your position....you have "quite enough"---See Above,  with just "Biological"

 

Enoch...I'm looking for someone in the creationist camp to tell me what scientist put forward as evidence of evolution.  If you can't, then debate is pointless as you do not know against what you are debating.

[Enoch2021]

Enoch...I'm looking for someone in the creationist camp to tell me what scientist put forward as evidence of evolution.  If you can't, then debate is pointless as you do not know against what you are debating.

 

 

Translation:  "I have no argument".

 

I provided the "Documented" definition for the General Theory of evolution and refuted it.... quite abruptly.  Before you can start discussing "evolution", my first two points "that you forgot to address" must be answered.  No sense in describing the steak before first establishing the existence of the cow.

 

There is no "Scientific Evidence" for evolution, so your question is Non-Sequitur (Fallacy).

[jerryR34]

 

Enoch...I'm looking for someone in the creationist camp to tell me what scientist put forward as evidence of evolution.  If you can't, then debate is pointless as you do not know against what you are debating.

 

 

Translation:  "I have no argument".

 

I provided the "Documented" definition for the General Theory of evolution and refuted it.... quite abruptly.  Before you can start discussing "evolution", my first two points "that you forgot to address" must be answered.  No sense in describing the steak before first establishing the existence of the cow.

 

There is no "Scientific Evidence" for evolution, so your question is Non-Sequitur (Fallacy).

 

 

I'm not asking you to refute it; I'm asking you to just tell me what the scientists say evolution is (I can tell you what creationists believe – can you grant me the courtesy of understanding the other side?).  In all my interactions with you and other creationists I have never been provided that.  I only see a bunch of straw men – your last post being the latest - that get beat down by those that offer them.  I'm looking for a creationist to be intellectually honest.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

========================================================================================

 

I'm asking you to just tell me what the scientists say evolution is (I can tell you what creationists believe – can you grant me the courtesy of understanding the other side?

 

I already did, SEE Kerkut's "Documented/Cited" Definition I posted.  And who cares what they say, it's what "scientists" can support/validate via the Scientific Method.

 

 

In all my interactions with you and other creationists I have never been provided that. 

 

Baloney.  Since you are the one "believing" it, why don't "You"-------Support It?

 

 

I only see a bunch of straw men – your last post being the latest - that get beat down by those that offer them.

 

Unsupported Assertion (Fallacy) x 2.  Show this so-called "beat down"?

 

I'm looking for a creationist to be intellectually honest.

 

Baseless Generalized Assertion (Fallacy)

 

Are you gonna support your baseless assertions @ some point?

 

I say again....

 

DNA/RNA/"Functional Proteins" NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from nucleotides and aminos, respectively.

It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.

That's just the Hardware!

 

DNA "CODE"/Software------------------Design(Intelligence)--------------------Designer!

 

To refute:

 

1. Prove that the Genetic CODE is not....."CODE"/Software. OR....

2. Prove that Atoms/Molecules have Sentience and Intelligence.

 

 

These are Strawman to evolution as Hydrogen is Strawman to H2O

[Guest]

Rotten Bread

 

Their worship is a farce, for they teach man-made ideas as commands from God.'" Matthew 15:9

 

~

 

How about we stick to biological evolution?

 

 

Look Around Any Barnyard, One Will Never See It

 

And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

 

And the evening and the morning were the third day. Genesis 1:12-13

 

Beloved, Don't Go Fooling Yourself

 

Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. Hebrews 3:12

 

A Fly Is Still A Fly

 

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

 

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:24-25

 

And Jesus Is

 

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

 

Still LORD

 

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Ephesians 3:9

 

~

 

Look Around, The Earth Is Surely Dying

 

For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

 

Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

 

For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

 

Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

 

For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. Romans 8:20-22

 

But Don't Blame The Neighbors

 

And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. Mark 12:31

 

For The Evolutionary Fable

 

For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

 

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

 

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

 

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1:17-20

 

Has No Cure For Sin

 

But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death. Proverbs 8:36

 

~

 

Just Look

 

But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee:

 

Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee.

 

Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the LORD hath wrought this?

 

In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind.

 

Doth not the ear try words? and the mouth taste his meat?

 

With the ancient is wisdom; and in length of days understanding.

 

With him is wisdom and strength, he hath counsel and understanding. Job 12:7-13

 

And Worship Your Creator

 

I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. Isaiah 42:8

 

Love, Joe

[Guest]

....I'm looking for someone in the creationist camp to tell me what scientist put forward as evidence of evolution.... 

 

....If you can't....

 

....then debate is pointless....

 

...as you do not know against what you are debating....

 

~

 

Beloved Jerry, Who Is

 

The serpent was the shrewdest of all the wild animals the LORD God had made. One day he asked the woman, "Did God really say you must not eat the fruit from any of the trees in the garden?" Genesis 3:1 (NLT)

 

The LORD Jesus The Messiah?

 

He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. John 1:10

 

And If There Is Any Truth To Evolution

 

You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like the clay! Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, "You did not make me"? Can the pot say to the potter, "You know nothing"? Isaiah 29:16 (NIV)

 

Why Do You Think God Lied?

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:1-3

[jerryR34]

 

 

 

 

========================================================================================

 

I'm asking you to just tell me what the scientists say evolution is (I can tell you what creationists believe – can you grant me the courtesy of understanding the other side?

 

I already did, SEE Kerkut's "Documented/Cited" Definition I posted.  And who cares what they say, it's what "scientists" can support/validate via the Scientific Method.

 

 

In all my interactions with you and other creationists I have never been provided that. 

 

Baloney.  Since you are the one "believing" it, why don't "You"-------Support It?

 

 

I only see a bunch of straw men – your last post being the latest - that get beat down by those that offer them.

 

Unsupported Assertion (Fallacy) x 2.  Show this so-called "beat down"?

 

I'm looking for a creationist to be intellectually honest.

 

Baseless Generalized Assertion (Fallacy)

 

Are you gonna support your baseless assertions @ some point?

 

I say again....

 

DNA/RNA/"Functional Proteins" NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from nucleotides and aminos, respectively.

It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.

That's just the Hardware!

 

DNA "CODE"/Software------------------Design(Intelligence)--------------------Designer!

 

To refute:

 

1. Prove that the Genetic CODE is not....."CODE"/Software. OR....

2. Prove that Atoms/Molecules have Sentience and Intelligence.

 

 

These are Strawman to evolution as Hydrogen is Strawman to H2O

 

Thanks for your input.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

 

 

========================================================================================

 

I'm asking you to just tell me what the scientists say evolution is (I can tell you what creationists believe – can you grant me the courtesy of understanding the other side?

 

I already did, SEE Kerkut's "Documented/Cited" Definition I posted.  And who cares what they say, it's what "scientists" can support/validate via the Scientific Method.

 

 

In all my interactions with you and other creationists I have never been provided that. 

 

Baloney.  Since you are the one "believing" it, why don't "You"-------Support It?

 

 

I only see a bunch of straw men – your last post being the latest - that get beat down by those that offer them.

 

Unsupported Assertion (Fallacy) x 2.  Show this so-called "beat down"?

 

I'm looking for a creationist to be intellectually honest.

 

Baseless Generalized Assertion (Fallacy)

 

Are you gonna support your baseless assertions @ some point?

 

I say again....

 

DNA/RNA/"Functional Proteins" NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from nucleotides and aminos, respectively.

It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.

That's just the Hardware!

 

DNA "CODE"/Software------------------Design(Intelligence)--------------------Designer!

 

To refute:

 

1. Prove that the Genetic CODE is not....."CODE"/Software. OR....

2. Prove that Atoms/Molecules have Sentience and Intelligence.

 

 

These are Strawman to evolution as Hydrogen is Strawman to H2O

 

Thanks for your input.

 

 

 

======================================================================================

 

 

No Problem, glad to be of assistance.

[Pahu]

Handedness: Left and Right 2

 

No known natural process can isolate either the left-handed or right-handed variety. The mathematical probability that chance processes could produce merely one tiny protein molecule with only left-handed amino acids is virtually zero (d).

 

A similar observation can be made for a special class of organic compounds called sugars. In living systems, sugars are all right-handed. Based on our present understanding, natural processes produce an equal number of left-handed and right-handed sugars. Because sugars in living things are right-handed, random natural processes apparently did not produce life.

 

If any living thing took in (or ate) amino acids or sugars with the wrong handedness, the organism’s body could not process it. Such food would be useless, if not harmful. Because evolution favors slight variations that enhance survivability and reproduction, consider how beneficial a mutation might be that switched (or inverted) a plant’s handedness. “Inverted” (or wrong-handed) trees would proliferate rapidly, because they would no longer provide nourishment to bacteria, mold, or termites. “Inverted” forests would fill continents. Other “inverted” plants and animals would also benefit and would overwhelm the balance of nature. Why do we not see such species with right-handed amino acids and left-handed sugars? Similarly, why are there not more poisonous plants? Why don’t beneficial mutations enable most carriers to defeat their predators? Beneficial mutations are rarer than most evolutionists believe. [see “Mutations” on page 9.]

 

d. “Many researchers have attempted to find plausible natural conditions under which [left-handed] L-amino acids would preferentially accumulate over their [right-handed] D-counterparts, but all such attempts have failed. Until this crucial problem is solved, no one can say that we have found a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. Instead, these isomer preferences point to biochemical creation.”  Kenyon, p. A-23.

 

Evolutionists who work in this field are continually seeking a solution. Occasionally, someone claims that it has been solved, but only after checking the details does one find that the problem remains. In Germany, in 1994, a doctoral candidate, Guido Zadel, claimed he had solved the problem. Supposedly, a strong magnetic field will bias a reaction toward either the left-handed or right-handed form. Origin-of-life researchers were excited. Zadel’s doctorate was awarded. At least 20 groups then tried to duplicate his results, always unsuccessfully. Later, Zadel admitted that he had dishonestly manipulated his data. [see Daniel Clery and David Bradley, “Underhanded ‘Breakthrough’ Revealed,” Science, Vol. 265, 1 July 1994, p. 21.]

 

James F. Coppedge, Evolution: Possible or Impossible? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973), pp. 71–79.

 

A. E. Wilder-Smith, The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1981), pp. 15–32, 154–160.

Dickerson, p. 76.

 

[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences40.html#wp1009545]