Proof of GOD, (without attacking Old Earth or evolution)

[EnochBethany]

This Question/Subject was asked on a different Thread and I felt was the Quintessential Question and a Great Topic for the Forum's Namesake.

 

 

There are only 2 choices as to HOW we are here: Random Chance "nature" or Intelligent Design "GOD". 

 

If you ascribe sentience and intelligence to the Universe and "nature" is your choice, then you have three minor hurdles to negotiate; namely,  Abiogenesis, the 1st/2nd Laws of Thermodynamics(1LOT/2LOT) "Pillars of Science", and Information.  Allow me to explain....

 

1.)  Abiogenesis, the cornerstone/foundation of LIFE, is IMPOSSIBLE by any "natural" process... denoted via 1LOT/2LOT, the Laws of Chemistry/Biochemistry, Laws of Information and Specific Complexity.  SEE: Law of Biogenesis

 

2.) 1st Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT "Pillar of Science"): The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.

     2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT "Pillar of Science"): The amount of energy available for work is running out,  and the Universe is moving inexorably to "Maximum Entropy" or Heat Death.

 

If the total amount of mass-energy is constant, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy—the ‘heat death’ of the universe.

 

You have only three options:

 

1. The Universe has always existed (in Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics);

2. The Universe created itself (in Violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics); or

3. The Universe was Created by GOD.

 

 

3.)  Information (DNA):  Since Matter (atoms/molecules) carry no Information intrinsically, You have to be able to explain "How Stupid Atoms Wrote Their Own Software?"

So this isn't a case where we "don't have the answers yet" we do and in "natures" case these barriers are Laughingly Insurmountable.

 

DNA is a 4-bit self replicating, error correcting/modifying Encrypted Code.  It's "Specific Complexity" is unrivaled in the known Universe.....

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”

Bill Gates, The Road Ahead

 

‘We now know that the secret of life lies not with the chemical ingredients as such, but with the logical structure and organisational arrangement of the molecules. … Like a supercomputer, life is an information processing system. … It is the software of the living cell that is the real mystery, not the hardware.’ But where did it come from?  ‘How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software? … Nobody knows … ’.

Davies, P., Life force, New Scientist 163(2204):27–30, 18 September 1999.

 

CODE only comes from Intelligence.  Also, Information is Mass-less (atoms/molecules carry no information intrinsically)....

That also means that Information/Software (The Real You) being Mass-less is also TIMELESS or Eternal.    Now that's Profound!!

 

"The meaning of the message will not be found in the physics and chemistry of the paper and ink" -Roger Sperry (neurobiologist and Nobel laureate)

Saying well, "Atoms/Molecules created Life or the Information/Software"... would be Tantamount to ascribing authorship of War and Peace to Ink Molecules!

 

 

4.)  Well taking our thesis with 1LOT....the GOD who created 1LOT must be outside of Time and not bound by it's Laws: Holy Scripture confirms this....

 

(Isaiah 57:15) "For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy;..."

Eternity is not someplace with Lots of Time....it's the Absence of Time.

 

(Isaiah 46:10) "Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:"

 

(2 Peter 3:8) "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

This IMHO, is a Rhetorical Device (Metaphors, Similes, Idioms, Types, Allegories) of which there are over 200 styles in the Holy Bible.  I hear people quote the first half of this verse and arrive @ a Literal conclusion (a Day = a Thousand Years).  Taking the Whole Verse...this clearly is conveying HIS TIMELESSNESS.

 

So if HE is outside of time and able to declare "End from the Beginning", can we test this Empirically?.... Yes; PROPHECY.  And ALL must be 100% accurate without failure.  By a conservative count there are over 1800 Specific Prophecies in the Holy Bible.  85% of them have come to pass with 100% accuracy without Failure.  The last 15% or so are yet future....Revelation.  There are Prophecies throughout Scripture but the mother-load IMHO are in the Book Of Daniel.  Among 100's detailing (Babylon, Medo-Persia: Cyrus The Great, Greece: Alexander the Great and his 4 Generals, and Romans) He details approx 300 years of secular history beforehand between the Ptolemaic and Seleucid Empires. The most Breath Taking of all Prophecies IMHO Daniel 9:25: The Angel Gabriel foretells...to the the EXACT DAY, 500 years beforehand, of Christ's Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem.

 

 

If you're on the Fence....It's TIME to face this Head On!!  For you don't know when you'll take your Last Breath. 

 

HE'S Calling You!!! 

 

For even the very hairs on your head are all numbered!!!!  Do you think we are talking here by Random Chance??

 

Humble Yourself Before HIM and HE will LIFT YOU UP!!  It's ABSOLUTELY FREE!!  PAID IN FULL!!

 

 

(John 14:6) "Jesus saith unto him,  I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

 

(Revelation 21:6) "And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely."

 

 

AMEN, PRAISE THE LORD!!!!!

Proof of God is an interesting concept.  Romans 1 expects persons to believe in God because of clear revelation in creation.  In the chapters which follow Isaiah 40:1, evidence for God's Word is offered by way of fulfilled prophecy (most notable in our day is Israel's return to the land).

 

But Acts 17 tells us:

"The God that made the world and all things therein, he, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in   temples made with hands;  25 neither is he served by men’s hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;  26 and he made of one every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed seasons, and the bounds of their habitation;  27 that they should seek God, if haply they might feel after him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us:  28 for in him we live, and move, and have our being;"

 

Consistent with Acts 17 is the concept that the existence of God is self-evident & axiomatic.  Each person is responsible to seek God, detect God's existence directly & affirm it.

 

Can one logically prove God with words?

Should we admit that there is some superior truth to the fact that God exists, a superior truth, more obvious, by which we would prove God's existence?

 

Now take the nature of logical proof.

Take Assertion A;

How do you know that assertion A is true?

You reply, "A is true because of Reason B."

So the rejoinder comes, OK, but how do you know that Reason B is true?

You:  Reason B is true becs of C.

Fine, but how do u know that C is true?

C is true becs of D.

Wonderbar, but how dost thou know that D is true?

D is true becs of E.

Traboljeri, but how do u know that E is true?

 

It can be seen that on this proving method, nothing at all has final proof, becs proof can always be demanded for the proof.  Thus to prove anything logically, one must trace the claim to axioms, self-evident truths, like

if A = B, then A + C = B + C.

 

How do I know I exist?  It is self-evident to me that I exist.  If I gave a reason for how I know I exist, still the bare fact that I exist is more certain to me than the reason I gave.

 

Thus I find 2 self-evident truths on which to hang everything else theologically:

1) The God of the Bible exists (axiom 1),

2) The Bible is the Word of God (axiom 2).

One must affirm or deny axioms for oneself.  The homework is yours, not mine.  Each person must seek God.  Each person has the responsibility to read or hear God's Word & affirm it ("My sheep hear My voice.")

Affirm or deny at your own peril.  Axioms are not proven; they are self-evident & used for ultimate proof.

 

BTW, you don't find the Lord Jesus arguing that the scripture is true.  Instead you find Him using scripture as the final proof by which other things are proven.  It is written! settles the argument; it goes no further.

[EnochBethany]

 

 

There are only 2 choices as to HOW we are here: Random Chance "nature" or Intelligent Design "GOD". 

 

As you mentioned earlier, we've been down this road before - this is a false dichotomy, and a very intellectually dishonest way to start a dialogue as you are telling anyone who is willing to discuss it with you that you have the only set of rules and will dictate the conversation. 

 

 

 

If you ascribe sentience and intelligence to the Universe

I don't do you?  If you ascribe those to the universe, you are saying trees, rocks, etc. are sentient and intelligent as the universe is all-encompassing?

 

 

1.)  Abiogenesis, the cornerstone/foundation of LIFE, is IMPOSSIBLE by any "natural" process... denoted via 1LOT/2LOT, the Laws of Chemistry/Biochemistry, Laws of Information and Specific Complexity.  SEE: Law of Biogenesis

Please expand on how the laws of thermodynamics make abiogenesis impossible.  There is/was plenty of energy to start or sustain life on earth much less the universe.  This is regardless of whether that energy is constant or decreasing.

 

You have only three options:

 

1. The Universe has always existed (in Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics);

2. The Universe created itself (in Violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics); or

3. The Universe was Created by GOD.

 

Again, false dichotomy.  Current scientific consensus is that the universe came from a point of singularity, and the universe is expanding.  This makes this argument moot.

 

3.)  Information (DNA):  Since Matter (atoms/molecules) carry no Information intrinsically, You have to be able to explain "How Stupid Atoms Wrote Their Own Software?"

So this isn't a case where we "don't have the answers yet" we do and in "natures" case these barriers are Laughingly Insurmountable.

 

DNA is a 4-bit self replicating, error correcting/modifying Encrypted Code.  It's "Specific Complexity" is unrivaled in the known Universe.....

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”

Bill Gates, The Road Ahead

 

‘We now know that the secret of life lies not with the chemical ingredients as such, but with the logical structure and organisational arrangement of the molecules. … Like a supercomputer, life is an information processing system. … It is the software of the living cell that is the real mystery, not the hardware.’ But where did it come from?  ‘How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software? … Nobody knows … ’.

Davies, P., Life force, New Scientist 163(2204):27–30, 18 September 1999.

 

CODE only comes from Intelligence.  Also, Information is Mass-less (atoms/molecules carry no information intrinsically)....

That also means that Information/Software (The Real You) being Mass-less is also TIMELESS or Eternal.    Now that's Profound!!

 

"The meaning of the message will not be found in the physics and chemistry of the paper and ink" -Roger Sperry (neurobiologist and Nobel laureate)

Saying well, "Atoms/Molecules created Life or the Information/Software"... would be Tantamount to ascribing authorship of War and Peace to Ink Molecules!

this from googling "Index of Creationist claims":

Response:

1. This question is based on some major misconceptions (addressed below). Its overriding logical error, however, is that it is an argument from ignorance. One's inability to find an answer to a question does not imply that the question has no answer.

    

2. Information is not meaning and does not, per se, imply any special structure or function. Any arrangement implies information; the information is how the arrangement is described. If a new arrangement occurs, whether spontaneously or from the outside, new information is assembled in the process. Even if the arrangement consists of shattering a glass into tiny pieces, that means assembling new information.

    

3. Nothing needs to assemble itself. Evolution and abiogenesis do not exclude outside influences; on the contrary, such outside influences are essential. In abiogenesis, it is observed that complex organic molecules easily form spontaneously due to little more than basic chemistry and energy from the sun or from the earth's interior. In evolution, information from the environment is communicated to genomes indirectly via natural selection against varieties that do not do well in that environment.

Links:

Musgrave, Ian et al., 2003. Information theory and creationism.

Further Reading:

Musgrave, Ian, 1998. Re: Abiogenesis (Post of the Month: April 1998)

 

 

 

The most Breath Taking of all Prophecies IMHO Daniel 9:25: The Angel Gabriel foretells...to the the EXACT DAY, 500 years beforehand, of Christ's Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem

 First we don't know what day Jesus died or what day he was born for that matter - how can you claim this level of accuracy.  This is all extra-biblical anlysis.  Second, the new testament was written after the old, and probably 1-2 centuries at least after the occurrences they describe.  That greatly diminishes prophecy.

 

I admire your faith, but it is faith, not science.  When you claim miracles and the supernatural - such as prophecy, your scientific arguments, by definition, can hold no water.

 

You say, "I admire your faith, but it is faith, not science.  When you claim miracles and the supernatural - such as prophecy, your scientific arguments, by definition, can hold no water."

 

This is a straw man argument and a false dichotomy.  "Faith" does not mean exclusively something for which there is no evidence, but one just up & believes it.  Objective faith is the conviction that an assertion is true; subjective faith is trust in someone or something.

 

Faith can be based on no evidence (credulity, gullibility, wishful things), some evidence, sufficient evidence, or absolute proof.  It is all faith. To be sure more & more the straw-man faith attack is used, and it has become common to abuse the word faith the way you use it.  The dictionaries have both definitions now (conviction, & belief without evidence).  But the basic meaning of objective faith is belief in something, conviction of truth.  Moreover, the Greek work pistis, by which Christian faith is defined, does not mean "without evidence."  In fact one of its meanings is proof!

 

It is quite stupid to be credulous or gullible.  It is also folly to be paranoid & not believe what any reasonable person believes, to be delusional.

 

But I put it to you that proper objective faith is the conviction that a proposition is true based on sufficient evidence or the obviousness of the self-evident.  To me it is obvious that I exist, self-evident; I need no proof, yet the conviction that axioms are true (used for proof, but not proven) is proper.  I have proper faith that I exist. 

 

Christian faith should be based on the self-evident & the sufficiency of the evidence.  When you thus attack it, you attack a straw-man.

[EnochBethany]

 

 

There are only 2 choices as to HOW we are here: Random Chance "nature" or Intelligent Design "GOD". 

 

As you mentioned earlier, we've been down this road before - this is a false dichotomy, and a very intellectually dishonest way to start a dialogue as you are telling anyone who is willing to discuss it with you that you have the only set of rules and will dictate the conversation. 

 

 

 

If you ascribe sentience and intelligence to the Universe

I don't do you?  If you ascribe those to the universe, you are saying trees, rocks, etc. are sentient and intelligent as the universe is all-encompassing?

 

 

1.)  Abiogenesis, the cornerstone/foundation of LIFE, is IMPOSSIBLE by any "natural" process... denoted via 1LOT/2LOT, the Laws of Chemistry/Biochemistry, Laws of Information and Specific Complexity.  SEE: Law of Biogenesis

Please expand on how the laws of thermodynamics make abiogenesis impossible.  There is/was plenty of energy to start or sustain life on earth much less the universe.  This is regardless of whether that energy is constant or decreasing.

 

You have only three options:

 

1. The Universe has always existed (in Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics);

2. The Universe created itself (in Violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics); or

3. The Universe was Created by GOD.

 

Again, false dichotomy.  Current scientific consensus is that the universe came from a point of singularity, and the universe is expanding.  This makes this argument moot.

 

3.)  Information (DNA):  Since Matter (atoms/molecules) carry no Information intrinsically, You have to be able to explain "How Stupid Atoms Wrote Their Own Software?"

So this isn't a case where we "don't have the answers yet" we do and in "natures" case these barriers are Laughingly Insurmountable.

 

DNA is a 4-bit self replicating, error correcting/modifying Encrypted Code.  It's "Specific Complexity" is unrivaled in the known Universe.....

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”

Bill Gates, The Road Ahead

 

‘We now know that the secret of life lies not with the chemical ingredients as such, but with the logical structure and organisational arrangement of the molecules. … Like a supercomputer, life is an information processing system. … It is the software of the living cell that is the real mystery, not the hardware.’ But where did it come from?  ‘How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software? … Nobody knows … ’.

Davies, P., Life force, New Scientist 163(2204):27–30, 18 September 1999.

 

CODE only comes from Intelligence.  Also, Information is Mass-less (atoms/molecules carry no information intrinsically)....

That also means that Information/Software (The Real You) being Mass-less is also TIMELESS or Eternal.    Now that's Profound!!

 

"The meaning of the message will not be found in the physics and chemistry of the paper and ink" -Roger Sperry (neurobiologist and Nobel laureate)

Saying well, "Atoms/Molecules created Life or the Information/Software"... would be Tantamount to ascribing authorship of War and Peace to Ink Molecules!

this from googling "Index of Creationist claims":

Response:

1. This question is based on some major misconceptions (addressed below). Its overriding logical error, however, is that it is an argument from ignorance. One's inability to find an answer to a question does not imply that the question has no answer.

    

2. Information is not meaning and does not, per se, imply any special structure or function. Any arrangement implies information; the information is how the arrangement is described. If a new arrangement occurs, whether spontaneously or from the outside, new information is assembled in the process. Even if the arrangement consists of shattering a glass into tiny pieces, that means assembling new information.

    

3. Nothing needs to assemble itself. Evolution and abiogenesis do not exclude outside influences; on the contrary, such outside influences are essential. In abiogenesis, it is observed that complex organic molecules easily form spontaneously due to little more than basic chemistry and energy from the sun or from the earth's interior. In evolution, information from the environment is communicated to genomes indirectly via natural selection against varieties that do not do well in that environment.

Links:

Musgrave, Ian et al., 2003. Information theory and creationism.

Further Reading:

Musgrave, Ian, 1998. Re: Abiogenesis (Post of the Month: April 1998)

 

 

 

The most Breath Taking of all Prophecies IMHO Daniel 9:25: The Angel Gabriel foretells...to the the EXACT DAY, 500 years beforehand, of Christ's Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem

 First we don't know what day Jesus died or what day he was born for that matter - how can you claim this level of accuracy.  This is all extra-biblical anlysis.  Second, the new testament was written after the old, and probably 1-2 centuries at least after the occurrences they describe.  That greatly diminishes prophecy.

 

I admire your faith, but it is faith, not science.  When you claim miracles and the supernatural - such as prophecy, your scientific arguments, by definition, can hold no water.

 

"Again, false dichotomy.  Current scientific consensus is that the universe came from a point of singularity, and the universe is expanding.  This makes this argument moot."

 

The idea that the universe came from a point of singularity (big bang) to me does appear to be a reasonable explanation for how the universe might have come to have the current condition that we observe.  However, I know of no proof for it, no way to observe a big bang, nor any way to produce it & replicate it.

 

Do you have some proof?

 

And BTW, does the fact that there is a scientific consensus prove anything at all?  A few years ago there was this consensus that the earth had 9 planets of which Pluto was one.  Is not the scientific consensus mere human knowledge destined to be revised pretty soon?

[jerryR34]

 

 

 

Mainstream science says we share 98%+ DNA with Chimps.  Do you know how that number is derived?

 

First off, you're Extrapolating from a Fairytale....... 98%:

 

“For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee."

Ebersberger, I. et al., Mapping human genetic ancestry, Molec. Biol. Evol. 24:2266–2276, 2007.

 

Down to 77% right quick!!

 

And, Bear in mind....Even if humans were ‘only’ 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross.

 

Professor David Page of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, the Y chromosomes of chimps and humans are “horrendously different from each other.” (See Nature 463(7278):149 and Nature 463(7280):536-539.)

 

The proven stability of the Y-chromosome compared to the rest of the human genome, combined with the large differences between human and chimp, is an insurmountable enigma for the human–chimp common ancestry paradigm.

 

You also need to review "Haldane's Dilemma".  For the final nail in this Chimp Fiasco.

 

We also share 50% of our DNA with Bananas.  Tobacco and Humans have 46 Chromosomes....are you saying that your great great great (Ad Infinitum) Grandfather was Hommo-Tobacco??

 

Just because the Lug Nuts from a Jeep fit on a Chevy doesn't mean they both "evolved" from a Tin Can 3 Billion Years ago Jerry.

 

I asked this question for my own edification.  You could not help yourself in opining on the subject rather than simply answering the question (which you did not).  You should have been able to answer the question without injecting your belief system, emotion, and snarkiness.  My faith is very strong as I can Believe, but still know that Darwin, Dawkins, Hawking, Krauss, et al. have better answers when it comes to the natural world.  Don't be afraid...if your faith is strong, Christ will still be there when you open your eyes.

 

I'll leave you to research the question.  I'd tell you where to look it up, but you don't like me recommending books. 

[Enoch2021]

 

 

Mainstream science says we share 98%+ DNA with Chimps.  Do you know how that number is derived?

 

First off, you're Extrapolating from a Fairytale....... 98%:

 

“For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee."

Ebersberger, I. et al., Mapping human genetic ancestry, Molec. Biol. Evol. 24:2266–2276, 2007.

 

Down to 77% right quick!!

 

And, Bear in mind....Even if humans were ‘only’ 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross.

 

Professor David Page of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, the Y chromosomes of chimps and humans are “horrendously different from each other.” (See Nature 463(7278):149 and Nature 463(7280):536-539.)

 

The proven stability of the Y-chromosome compared to the rest of the human genome, combined with the large differences between human and chimp, is an insurmountable enigma for the human–chimp common ancestry paradigm.

 

You also need to review "Haldane's Dilemma".  For the final nail in this Chimp Fiasco.

 

We also share 50% of our DNA with Bananas.  Tobacco and Humans have 46 Chromosomes....are you saying that your great great great (Ad Infinitum) Grandfather was Hommo-Tobacco??

 

Just because the Lug Nuts from a Jeep fit on a Chevy doesn't mean they both "evolved" from a Tin Can 3 Billion Years ago Jerry.

 

I asked this question for my own edification.  You could not help yourself in opining on the subject rather than simply answering the question (which you did not).  You should have been able to answer the question without injecting your belief system, emotion, and snarkiness.  My faith is very strong as I can Believe, but still know that Darwin, Dawkins, Hawking, Krauss, et al. have better answers when it comes to the natural world.  Don't be afraid...if your faith is strong, Christ will still be there when you open your eyes.

 

I'll leave you to research the question.  I'd tell you where to look it up, but you don't like me recommending books. 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

Do you have a Computer Jerry?  Look it up yourself....start with "reassociation kinetics".  This was the initial technique....the ("98-99%" fiasco) and has many flaws.

 

You never answer any questions that I propose LOL but you impale me for pointing out your 98% fiasco? 

 

 

able to answer the question without injecting your belief system, emotion, and snarkiness

 

There wasn't and I SUPPORTED IT.

 

 

Darwin, Dawkins, Hawking, Krauss, et al. have better answers when it comes to the natural world.

 

Well because you're infatuated with "Theories" and "Theoretical" Physicists to tell you stories and fables for your itching ears.

 

Do you know what THEORETICAL Means Jerry:

 

Theoretical: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theoretical

 

1a :  relating to or having the character of theory :  abstract

b :  confined to theory or speculation often in contrast to practical applications :  speculative

2 :  given to or skilled in theorizing

 

3:  existing only in theory :  hypothetical

 

 

So you put this in place of "Science" and the "Scientific Method" and then equivocate.  It's a clumsy relationship by definition.

 

 

Don't be afraid...if your faith is strong

 

Oh, I'm not

 

 

I'll leave you to research the question.

 

Really, Thank You.  You act like this is something new.

 

To be perfectly honest Jerry, from all of our interactions....with all do respect:  I don't think you'd know what "science" was if it landed on your head and whistled dixie.

 

Just My Humble Opinion.

[jerryR34]

 

I'll pray for you.

Edited February 25, 2014 by jerryR34

[Enoch2021]

For all the Viewers I'll go ahead and just take one aspect of the "evolution" fairytale and systematically destroy it........

 

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Slowly But Surely...
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a slow gradual process. Darwin wrote, "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps."[1] Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." [2] Such a complex organ would be known as an "irreducibly complex system". An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. [3] Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece.

http://www.allaboutscience.org/darwins-theory-of-evolution.htm

 

See Topic: "Irreducible Complexity" in this Forum for a Comprehensive Destruction of {1} above.

 

 

From above.....Darwin wrote, "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps."

 

Well....

 

"What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories."
(Mayr, E., Animal Species and Evolution, 1982, p. 524.)

"Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series."
(Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, What Evolution Is, 2001, p.14.)

 

We don't see "slight successive variations" do we??  We see the exact opposite....  Uh Oh, but don't fret.... And Then......AbraCadabra!!  "Another" Ad Hoc Hypothesis Savior:  Punctuated Equilibrium!!

 

Ad Hoc Hypothesis or "after-the-fact" Hypothesis: is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. They are characteristic of PSEUDOscientific objects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis

 

 

Evolution's ad hoc hypothesis: (Punctuated Equilibrium, Convergent Evolution...et al)

 

PSEUDO-science: is an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions.
http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/pseudoscience

 

"Science is also distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that it offers insight into the physical world obtained by empirical research and testing."
Stephen Jay Gould, "Nonoverlapping magisteria", Natural History, March, 1997.

 

Empirical evidence is information that is acquired by observation and experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.

http://www.livescience.com/21456-empirical-evidence-a-definition.html#sthash.o45VB9bA.dpuf

 

 

The Scientific Method: "Real" Science (Empirical/Experimental/Operational) is based on the Scientific Method!!

Step 1:  OBSERVE A PHENOMENON

Step 2: Do Literature Review/Background research

Step 3: Construct Hypothesis (Tentative Assumption/Question/Statement)

Step 4: TEST/Experiment

Step 5: Analyze DATA/Results

Step 6:  Draw Conclusions.....  (Valid Hypothesis or Invalid Hypothesis)

Step 7:  Report Results

If invalidated....Back to the drawing board or STEP 3

 

 

In Short, Empirical Scientific Evidence Displays 4 Tenets:

Observable
Measurable/Testable
Repeatable
Falsifiable

 

Show ONE Empirical "Scientific" Evidence of Evolution!!!!!

 

All you have is an assumption "evolution did it" with Ad Hoc OBSERVATIONS!  The Whole Theory is a classic TEXTBOOK: Affirming the Consequent Logical Fallacy....

If P then Q.
Q.
Therefore P.

The logical fallacy is that P doesn't necessarily follow from Q. 

1. IF Evolution is true: Then Insert any "Darwinian Grab-Bag"  Ad Hoc Observations (Fossils/Homology/Genetic Variation et al)
2. We observe (Ad Hoc Observation)
3. Therefore, Evolution is true.

 

1) If I had just eaten a whole pizza, I would feel very full;
2) I feel very full;
3.) Therefore: I have just eaten a whole pizza.

 

Couldn't I have just gotten Full from Baby Short back Ribs? 

 

 

toe is an Unverified /Untestable Hypothesis; hence, Unfalsifiable Assumption ... and as we have discovered (SEE: above), is actually a Pseudo-science wrapped inside a Logical Fallacy which is propagated by Science "Priests" with an a priori commitment to a fairytale.  Plain and simple!!

 

Good?

[jerryR34]

For all the Viewers I'll go ahead and just take one aspect of the "evolution" fairytale and systematically destroy it........

 

Seems you can't even adhere to the bounds of your own topic..."without attacking Old Earth or evolution".

[Enoch2021]

 

For all the Viewers I'll go ahead and just take one aspect of the "evolution" fairytale and systematically destroy it........

 

Seems you can't even adhere to the bounds of your own topic..."without attacking Old Earth or evolution".

 

 

Well we had already established the Tenets of the OP without coherent/substantive rebuttal.  In Actually, All arguments against the OP were inherently dismantled in the substance of the OP.  In other words, as soon as I hit "Add New Topic", the fate of those "Potential" arguments were forever sealed in a "dreamland catatonic state".

 

Theretofore....I thought I might be an appropriate time to dismantle another myth.  And it's My OP

 

Anything (**Substantive**) to add?

 

I did want to touch on the "whistle dixie" landing on your head / science comment......

 

You see, there is nothing wrong with not knowing or not having a background in any of the sciences.   BUT.....  It is yet quite another matter entirely to comment with some conjured pseudo-authority on said sciences without that experience or knowledge.  Especially when it is a specific discipline with many nuances that if not careful will compromise your position in a Planck Time by someone who's life's work was/is involved in said sciences.

 

Savvy?

[jerryR34]

 

 ...It is yet quite another matter entirely to comment with some conjured pseudo-authority on said sciences without that experience or knowledge. 

haha...couldn't agree with you more...