Jump to content
IGNORED

disproving evolution in 5 minutes or less


justme007

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  140
  • Content Per Day:  0.05
  • Reputation:   47
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  11/07/2016
  • Status:  Offline

i'm not a scientist, i'm just trying to think rationally. i see many ways to disprove evolution .

1. complexity.

in order for any life to exist it must be able to reproduce. it doesn't matter if we're talking about single cells or large organisms. how would one define reproduction in theory? reproduction is a process very similar to duplication of oneself. duplication is when the "offspring" is identical to the "parent". in terms of complexity reproduction is equal to or more complex than duplication. i could expand on that later. the process of duplication itself is very complex. now imagine a machine that on top of its regular functions could also duplicate itself. imagine a car that at the same time happens to be a car factory, or a computer, and so on. that's what living organisms do. now imagine that a mechanism of that complexity originated on its own, "naturally", by constant mixing of molecules. that is simply impossible. evolution does not explain the origin of life.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  12
  • Topic Count:  35
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,714
  • Content Per Day:  1.18
  • Reputation:   249
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  08/04/2015
  • Status:  Offline

On 09/01/2017 at 11:21 AM, justme007 said:

i'm not a scientist, i'm just trying to think rationally. i see many ways to disprove evolution .

1. complexity.

in order for any life to exist it must be able to reproduce. it doesn't matter if we're talking about single cells or large organisms. how would one define reproduction in theory? reproduction is a process very similar to duplication of oneself. duplication is when the "offspring" is identical to the "parent". in terms of complexity reproduction is equal to or more complex than duplication. i could expand on that later. the process of duplication itself is very complex. now imagine a machine that on top of its regular functions could also duplicate itself. imagine a car that at the same time happens to be a car factory, or a computer, and so on. that's what living organisms do. now imagine that a mechanism of that complexity originated on its own, "naturally", by constant mixing of molecules. that is simply impossible. evolution does not explain the origin of life.

Perfectly right. Evolution does not explain the origin of life. Never did and never will.

 

:) siegi :)

 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

On 1/10/2017 at 6:45 PM, siegi91 said:

Evolution does not explain the origin of life.

"evolution", what's that ??  

Please post the 'Scientific Theory' of evolution...?

 

Quote

...not explain the origin of life.  Never did and never will.

Factually Incorrect...

From two of the Fathers of 20th Century evolution theory...
 
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.

 
"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments.  Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous.  LIFE is a product of the evolution of INORGANIC NATURE, and man is a product of the evolution of life." {Emphasis Mine}
Dobzhansky T.G. "Changing Man", Science, 27 January 1967, Vol. 155. No 3761. p 409

 

regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  140
  • Content Per Day:  0.05
  • Reputation:   47
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  11/07/2016
  • Status:  Offline

oh, just wanted to explain what i meant when i said that reproduction is equal to or more complex than duplication. in a case of duplication there is a mechanism that follows a certain algorithm. that algorithm involves building a duplicate part by part. the mechanism is only required to analyze those parts in a "true/false" way. it needs to tell whether or not a particular part corresponds exactly to the needed parameters. then it either accepts or rejects the part. in the case with reproduction of living organisms the "parts" are not identical but sufficiently similar. and every parameter is not a constant but is defined by the lower and the upper limits. and therefore the algorithms need additional steps in verifying that everything is within the needed limits.  it is a simpler procedure to verify whether  Xn = X than to verify whether X lower < Xn < X upper.

is that correct? again, i'm not a scientist, i just know a bit of math, a bit of programing and i have no knowledge at all when it comes to biology. these are just simple conclusions from observing the surrounding world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  140
  • Content Per Day:  0.05
  • Reputation:   47
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  11/07/2016
  • Status:  Offline

4 hours ago, Cletus said:

How does it work out that it takes millions of years for evolution to occur, theoretically, and yet an evolution is supposed to be somehow be beneficial for the next generation's survival or ability to get a mate or something of that nature. Seems to me it should take several generations for this mutation to take effect which would mean all the in between generations would be freaks.    and even still its a wildcard genetic in a specific gene pool?   it would get bred out eventually. 

This is what i call the theory of unnatural dis-selection.   There is more to it but i think this should suffice to say evolution disproven in 5 minutes or less.

exactly. there are so many ways to see that life cannot originate on its own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

  • Group:  Graduated to Heaven
  • Followers:  208
  • Topic Count:  60
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  8,651
  • Content Per Day:  1.18
  • Reputation:   5,761
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  01/31/2004
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  03/04/1943

On 1/12/2017 at 10:38 AM, Enoch2021 said:
From two of the Fathers of 20th Century evolution theory...
 
‘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. http://www.conservapedia.com/General_theory_of_evolution
 
"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments.  Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous.  LIFE is a product of the evolution of INORGANIC NATURE, and man is a product of the evolution of life." {Emphasis Mine}
Dobzhansky T.G. "Changing Man", Science, 27 January 1967, Vol. 155. No 3761. p 409
https://books.google.com/books?id=IOFmZoesMNoC&pg=PA459&lpg=PA459&dq=Dobzhansky+T.H.E.+"Changing+Man",+Science,+27+January+1967,+Vol.+155.+No+3761.+p+409&source=bl&ots=sUw2b5OJ1F&sig=9IdoDcX_b-3yI_BJEnMWDn0wwwk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwikxa_T_NfRAhVL9YMKHdrvBPgQ6AEIGjAA#v=onepage&q=Dobzhansky T.H.E. "Changing Man"%2C Science%2C 27 January 1967%2C Vol. 155. No 3761. p 409&f=false

regards

:thumbsup:

Beloved, Thank You For The Sources
These Are Great References To A Couple
Of The Latter-Day High Priests Of Scientism

and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the ages has been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ. Ephesians 3:9 ( Jubilee Bible 2000)

:sherlock:

The Assertion That All Living Forms Must Come From Some Ancient Inorganic (Lifeless) Form
Has Never Ever Been Seen On Earth And Has Nothing Whatsoever To Do With Science
But Comes Straight From The Realm Of Demons, Fables, Wishful Thinking
And The Magical (Flem-Flam) Trickery Of Fast Nonsense Talkers, IMO

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called; 1 Timothy 6:20 (Webster Bible Translation)

Again, The Assertion That Life Is Somehow The Product Of Evolution
Is Mocked By The Lack Of Any Evidence Found In Geology
And The Fact That Evolution Is Never Seen Today
Except In Cartoons And Other Dramas
Of The Non-Believers
Upon Earth

You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power: for you have created all things, and for your pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11 (American King James Version)

~

Billy Graham: On technology and faith

~

Be Blessed Beloved Of The KING

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:
The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27 (King James Bible)

Love, Your Brother Joe

~

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160 (King James Bible)

The Bible contains the mind of God, the state of man, the way of salvation, the doom of sinners, and the happiness of believers. Its doctrines are holy, its precepts are binding, its histories are true, and its decisions are immutable.

Read it to be wise, believe it to be safe, and practice it to be holy. It contains light to direct you, food to support you, and comfort to cheer you.

It is the traveler’s map, the pilgrim’s staff, the pilot’s compass, the soldier’s sword and the Christian’s charter. Here too, Heaven is opened and the gates of Hell disclosed.

Christ is its grand subject, our good its design, and the glory of God its end. It should fill the memory, rule the heart and guide the feet. Read it slowly, frequently and prayerfully.  It is a mine of wealth, a paradise of glory, and a river of pleasure.

It is given you in life, will be opened at the judgment, and be remembered forever. It involves the highest responsibility, rewards the greatest labor, and will condemn all who trifle with its sacred contents.

From The Inside Of My Gideon New Testament

  • Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  35
  • Topic Count:  99
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  40,676
  • Content Per Day:  7.95
  • Reputation:   21,236
  • Days Won:  76
  • Joined:  03/13/2010
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  07/27/1957

Let God summarize all this

Romans 1:20 (KJV)

[20] 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:

[21] Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

[22] Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

[23] And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

It is exactly as it is written and clearly succinct to what the effort of 'IS'  ...  Love, Steven

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,323
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,301
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

Hi JM,

So before I start, I want to point out that I am a Biblical, young-earth creationist. But I don’t think you have justified the conclusions in your argument.

 

Firstly, when you use absolutist terminology like “disprove”, you are claiming an absolute truth – which is beyond the scope of human experience. You are claiming to have demonstrated your position beyond all possible doubt – utterly beyond question. We are finite creatures. Only God has access to ultimate truth – and we agree with Him by faith. I consider life’s complexity to be one of the strongest arguments for an intelligent Designer, but the existence of complexity in life doesn’t “disprove” anything. An intelligent designer could, for example, have directed an evolutionary process. I don’t believe that’s how it happened, but the point is that the existence of complexity in life doesn’t logically undermine the possibility of “evolution”.

 

But then, what do you mean by “evolution”? I, as a creationist, have no real issue with Natural Selection, or speciation, or mutations or most of the other things commonly labelled “evolution”. None of these are necessarily inconsistent with the Genesis account of history. However, Common Ancestry and its required long ages do contradict the Bible. The word “evolution” is too easily equivocated for my liking. I prefer people to use more precise language when dealing with this issue – to avoid such unnecessary equivocation.

 

You said “in order for any life to exist it must be able to reproduce”, yet many individuals live without reproducing, or are incapable of reproducing. So the capacity to reproduce cannot be essential to the definition of life. The observed fact that all life is derived from life (the natural law of biogenesis) is a very strong argument that life doesn’t arise naturally from inorganic conditions.

 

But we cannot say its “impossible” without access to all the knowledge in all of reality (i.e. omniscience). Your assertion here is not supported. We can point to the mathematical incredulities involved in the formulation of information, translating the right amino acids in the right order, folded in the right conformation to make a beneficially functional protein – then multiply those odds by every different kind of functional protein in all life, which happens to be on a planet just the right distance from its star to provide for water in its liquid phase, on a planet full of water, with a magnetic field to protect DNA from degradation by solar radiation, in a pocket of the solar system protected from cosmic rays. Or you can point to the most complex human machine, then point out the stupendously more complex biological systems – making it more likely that a space shuttle, for example, would form naturally, than the simplest of living cells. But we can’t logically claim something to be “impossible” without claiming to know everything. Perhaps, ‘not possible given our current knowledge’.

 

If we are going to be “rational”, we have to acknowledge the logical limits of our perspective.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  1,695
  • Content Per Day:  0.45
  • Reputation:   583
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  01/03/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/11/1968

On 4/12/2017 at 8:02 PM, Tristen said:

Hi JM,

So before I start, I want to point out that I am a Biblical, young-earth creationist. But I don’t think you have justified the conclusions in your argument.

Firstly, when you use absolutist terminology like “disprove”, you are claiming an absolute truth – which is beyond the scope of human experience. You are claiming to have demonstrated your position beyond all possible doubt – utterly beyond question. We are finite creatures. Only God has access to ultimate truth – and we agree with Him by faith. I consider life’s complexity to be one of the strongest arguments for an intelligent Designer, but the existence of complexity in life doesn’t “disprove” anything. An intelligent designer could, for example, have directed an evolutionary process. I don’t believe that’s how it happened, but the point is that the existence of complexity in life doesn’t logically undermine the possibility of “evolution”.

But then, what do you mean by “evolution”? I, as a creationist, have no real issue with Natural Selection, or speciation, or mutations or most of the other things commonly labelled “evolution”. None of these are necessarily inconsistent with the Genesis account of history. However, Common Ancestry and its required long ages do contradict the Bible. The word “evolution” is too easily equivocated for my liking. I prefer people to use more precise language when dealing with this issue – to avoid such unnecessary equivocation.

You said “in order for any life to exist it must be able to reproduce”, yet many individuals live without reproducing, or are incapable of reproducing. So the capacity to reproduce cannot be essential to the definition of life. The observed fact that all life is derived from life (the natural law of biogenesis) is a very strong argument that life doesn’t arise naturally from inorganic conditions.

But we cannot say its “impossible” without access to all the knowledge in all of reality (i.e. omniscience). Your assertion here is not supported. We can point to the mathematical incredulities involved in the formulation of information, translating the right amino acids in the right order, folded in the right conformation to make a beneficially functional protein – then multiply those odds by every different kind of functional protein in all life, which happens to be on a planet just the right distance from its star to provide for water in its liquid phase, on a planet full of water, with a magnetic field to protect DNA from degradation by solar radiation, in a pocket of the solar system protected from cosmic rays. Or you can point to the most complex human machine, then point out the stupendously more complex biological systems – making it more likely that a space shuttle, for example, would form naturally, than the simplest of living cells. But we can’t logically claim something to be “impossible” without claiming to know everything. Perhaps, ‘not possible given our current knowledge’.

If we are going to be “rational”, we have to acknowledge the logical limits of our perspective.

 

There's some truth in your post. But it's as logical as saying a unicorn flew past earth and life formed from a flea that fell off him. Disprove that!   haha     

Sure abiogenesis is an interesting concept, and the unicorn's flea is as well. Both are in the realm of fantasy until someone can think up a way it can work that is not impossible. Every time someone tries to conjure up a possible scenario for abiogenesis, upon analysis it is impossible. It's impossible to have competing environments existing simultaneously and this is what is required.

The scientific method requires a valid hypothesis before becoming a valid theory. If the concept of abiogenesis hasn't even reached a stage of a valid hypothesis it remains in the realm of fantasy wishful thinking. Even if one has never had any supernatural experience it's easier to believe in a supernatural start to life than some "chemical cesspool" fantasy that has no scientific validity. And most of us come across at least one supernatural experience in our lives, making supernatural creation a more logical explanation for beginnings.

 

http://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,323
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,301
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

15 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

There's some truth in your post. But it's as logical as saying a unicorn flew past earth and life formed from a flea that fell off him. Disprove that!   haha     

Sure abiogenesis is an interesting concept, and the unicorn's flea is as well. Both are in the realm of fantasy until someone can think up a way it can work that is not impossible. Every time someone tries to conjure up a possible scenario for abiogenesis, upon analysis it is impossible. It's impossible to have competing environments existing simultaneously and this is what is required.

The scientific method requires a valid hypothesis before becoming a valid theory. If the concept of abiogenesis hasn't even reached a stage of a valid hypothesis it remains in the realm of fantasy wishful thinking. Even if one has never had any supernatural experience it's easier to believe in a supernatural start to life than some "chemical cesspool" fantasy that has no scientific validity. And most of us come across at least one supernatural experience in our lives, making supernatural creation a more logical explanation for beginnings.

 

http://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis

Hi Argosy,

You said “it's [presumably evolution] as logical as saying a unicorn flew past earth and life formed from a flea that fell off him. Disprove that!   haha

 

That’s why I propose that “disprove” is inappropriately absolutist for the OPs claim. Likewise “impossible”.

- Though your unicorn scenario is rationally inconsistent with itself – i.e. life existed in the flea and unicorn before it formed from the flea.

 

Even as a Biblical creationist, I think Common Ancestry can be weakly supported by facts and logic. I consider the facts and logic to be far more consistent with Biblical creation. But that, of itself, doesn’t render Common Ancestry irrational. What I do find irrational in this debate, is the propensity of secularists to overstate mathematical confidence in Common Ancestry, as though it is the only valid perspective. That degree of confidence cannot be justified or sustained, by either fact or logic. We Christians recognise that a degree of faith is required to uphold our preferred position. The secular community is generally less self-aware that their position also requires at-least as much faith.

 

I didn’t mention “abiogenesis”. Abiogenesis is also inherently weak (as far as arguments go); being utterly bereft of observational support. However Biogenesis is a natural law – based in ubiquitous observation. That life has only ever been observed to form from life is a strong argument for an initial Life-Giver whose existence is not founded in, or bound by, the natural universe. That is eminently consistent with Biblical creation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...