disproving evolution in 5 minutes or less

[Still Alive]

On 1/9/2017 at 5:21 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.

I've gone 'round and 'round with evolutionists and for me it finally comes down to this: What matters is how life came about in the first place Even if we could create organic material from non-life in a test tube, how would we make it "alive". 

So that is the big question, and it doesn't even speak to complexity, which is the second, and almost as formidable hurdle. 

 

But the bottom line is that there is no proof of evolution at all. Only proof that, theoretically, it could happen. What evolutionists have actually observed and call "evolution" could also be described as "mutation". Evolution isn't even a theory. It is an hypothesis. A theory must be provable. Evolution isn't.

[one.opinion]

3 hours ago, Behold said:

Its a theory that bases much of its (proof) idea on a "connecting fossil record"

There are multiple different fields that contain evidence of evolution. I would argue that although there is considerable evidence in the fossil record, there is more compelling evidence in our anatomy, physiology, and genetics.

3 hours ago, Behold said:

there is no connecting fossil record

This is not true.

3 hours ago, Behold said:

there are only adherents to the theory of evolution, that will lie and say......"yes, we believe it, we have some old bones, we have connected the dots, that we can't prove, and now, we have a theory that some will buy who aren't really paying attention".

I find it interesting that you follow up a completely untrue statement by stating that others lie.

[one.opinion]

52 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

What evolutionists have actually observed and call "evolution" could also be described as "mutation".

Not really - mutations are obviously critical, but there is a whole lot more to how mutations contribute to genetic diversity and relative fitness of organisms to their environment.

53 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

Evolution isn't even a theory. It is an hypothesis. A theory must be provable. Evolution isn't.

What label we attach to evolution really doesn't matter. It happens to be the idea/hypothesis/theory that best explains the all of the available evidence.

55 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

What matters is how life came about in the first place Even if we could create organic material from non-life in a test tube, how would we make it "alive".

This is a point where we can agree. I believe abiogenesis is the biggest question still unanswered for a naturalistic explanation of life without divine intervention. Personally, I believe God is the author of all life, and has used the tool of evolution, in His own time, in the creation process.

[Still Alive]

2 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

What label we attach to evolution really doesn't matter. It happens to be the idea/hypothesis/theory that best explains the all of the available evidence.

I'll just focus on this one. 

It best "scientifically" explains it, I agree. At least based on what we know so far. But the more we know, the more complex the problem we are trying to solve. This continues to chip away at evolution theory. You only need a theory like that if you refuse to believe that God created each species according to its kind. I find that the more complex life is discovered to be, the less trustworthy this theory is. 

To me, we are like aliens coming to this planet long after all life has disappeared, and finding a modern Porsche rusting away in a field and saying the car was created by the rust process. It may be destroying the car, but it's not what created it. And the more complex you realize the car to be, the dumber the rust theory looks. 

But that's just me.

[Still Alive]

15 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Perhaps you don't know what "theory" means.

Part of the problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/

And evolution isn't a theory.   It's a natural phenomenon, which we directly observe happening.   There is a theory of evolution that explains it.   There are agents of evolution like natural selection, and there are consequences of evolution, like increased fitness in a population, and common descent.

So many people get these all confused.

I think the rub is what the person means by "evolution". Heck, the Corvette has "evolved" over the decades. 

 

No, I'm not joking.

[one.opinion]

4 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

It best "scientifically" explains it, I agree. At least based on what we know so far. But the more we know, the more complex the problem we are trying to solve. This continues to chip away at evolution theory. You only need a theory like that if you refuse to believe that God created each species according to its kind. I find that the more complex life is discovered to be, the less trustworthy this theory is. 

True, there are still a LOT of very good questions left to answer, and more questions come up as new discoveries are made. However, the progress of scientific discovery still supports evolution as the best scientific explanation. The more I learn and understand the incredible intricacies of living organisms, the more awe-struck I am by the incredible power of the creating God that made it all possible. I believe the term "according to its kind" has been misinterpreted. Of course parents produce progeny of the same kind. The language of Genesis 1 does not indicate that these kinds may not change gradually over tremendously long periods of time.

[one.opinion]

6 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

I think the rub is what the person means by "evolution". Heck, the Corvette has "evolved" over the decades. 

 

No, I'm not joking.

Completely true, this is a really good point. Corvette evolution is fun to watch :-)

I agree with the great majority of other scientists that observable evolution on a small scale that we can observe today has led to large-scale changes - what some people prefer to call macro-evolution.

[Still Alive]

21 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

True, there are still a LOT of very good questions left to answer, and more questions come up as new discoveries are made. However, the progress of scientific discovery still supports evolution as the best scientific explanation. The more I learn and understand the incredible intricacies of living organisms, the more awe-struck I am by the incredible power of the creating God that made it all possible. I believe the term "according to its kind" has been misinterpreted. Of course parents produce progeny of the same kind. The language of Genesis 1 does not indicate that these kinds may not change gradually over tremendously long periods of time.

We completely agree there. I'll add this: Take away ID and all you are left with, so far, is evolution.

[Still Alive]

29 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Completely true, this is a really good point. Corvette evolution is fun to watch :-)

I agree with the great majority of other scientists that observable evolution on a small scale that we can observe today has led to large-scale changes - what some people prefer to call macro-evolution.

That is another "rub". Since large scale changes happen over a longer period of time than homo-sapiens have walked the earth, it has not been observed.  Hence the insistence of calling it an hypothesis rather than a theory.  Sure, it's technically "testable", but it is testable in the same sense that FM Radio is testable, but was also "testable" 4,000 years ago. i.e. not in a practical sense.

But taking a creator out of the equation, it's the only "theory" we have. 

Edited April 24, 2019 by Still Alive

[one.opinion]

12 minutes ago, Still Alive said:

We completely agree there. I'll add this: Take away ID and all you are left with, so far, is evolution.

In a sense, I am completely supportive of ID. I absolutely believe that an Intelligent Designer is essential for what we see today. In fact, I'm willing to go beyond what some ID proponents will state and claim that the Intelligent Designer is Jesus Christ, who is also my personal Savior and Lord. But as a competing scientific hypothesis, ID just plain lacks evidence. ID proponents are single-minded in their focus, which is to attempt to explain why standard evolution is not sufficient to match with the available evidence (often, without good reason). They simply have not put forward any competing evidence to date. Believe me - I would LOVE to have some stronger scientific evidence to support my concept of ID, it just doesn't exist at this point.