Bad scientific arguments against evolution: Part 1

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

No not "class" or "kind", let's get our terms correct.

I was using the word “class” in taxonomic terms. The horse is a mammal of Class Equidae and the lion is a mammal of Class Felidae.

To get terms straight, is this what you are looking for? The exact DNA differences between Equidae and Felidae? You’ve mentioned species, as well. Most Young Earth Creationists fully recognize that speciation is possible. What they tend to reject is the idea that (with enough time) species can eventually diverge enough to make new Genera or new Families.

[Guest shiloh357]

10 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Let me make sure I am understanding what you are asking. You need to see specific DNA mutations that lead directly from one mammalian class to another in order to be convinced?

Well, yes.  That's what we mean when we talk about Evolution.  We're not  talking about adaption.    Whenever we ask for evolution evidence, of the type that YOU say God used to create,  you hold up organisms that adapted or changed but pretty much remain what they are.   You hold up evolution of horses that simply changed over time into another kind of horse, or something like that.   You have NO evidence for the kind of evolution you say God that used to create.

[Uber Genius]

While I heartily agree with you Agustine reference the second law of thermodynamics has some problems.

i do agree that the blanket statement about the second law of thermodynamics eliminates the possibility of evolution being true, we certainly have some more work to do before we concede your larger point.

 

"According to Fred Hoyle's analysis, the probability of cellular life's arising from non-living matter (abiogenesis) was about one-in-10^40,000.^[5] He commented:

The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."

Hoyle was an atheist and certainly had no YEC-axe to grind yet he seems to recognize something true of both abiogenesis as well as of NeoDarwinian theory. Both assume that a random process is producing a very unlikely, tightly specified result. 

 

We we don't just need to explain energy, which you did nicely, we need to explain order from disorder fitting a closely specified pattern. 

A random process need to require enormous order in the way of DNA to provide basic function. Further, the more we discover about evolutionary biology the more complexity we have to account for. What you have accounted for is the physical matters energy requirements. It is like giving the formula for a magnetic surface on a metal platter and saying, "See, now this accounts for 50 million lines of code in MS Windows 10."

 

Something has has gone wrong here certainly. So while your specific point seems correct and I applaud the larger nature of your topic, the second law of thermodynamics is getting at the creation of order from disorder. And specifically the rapid appearance of complex specified information, which is not explained in the least by energy inputs.

 

 

[Uber Genius]

On August 26, 2018 at 8:02 AM, Abdicate said:

So I've laid out the crux of the matter: evolution denies the need for a plan of salvation. This is right in line with these verses:

Psalms 10:4 
In the pride of his face the wicked does not seek him; all his thoughts are, “There is no God.” 

2 Thessalonians 2:8-12 
And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 

Evolution started with the denial of God, but since science is proving over and over that the universe is so complex that statistically it cannot have happened randomly through any process, so they turn from billions of years to billions of miles - yes, aliens. They now believe an alien race came here and seeded the earth. Star Trek has been pushing that for over a generation. Here is the "strong delusion" aliens. Every Sci Fi show is about aliens, some good, most bad. The point is even the evening news talks about that UFOs are real. They are nothing more than demonic activities. We either believe God despite our five senses or we don't. After all, isn't that what Heb 11:1 explains?

Here is the domino effect for sure: no Adam, no Eve, no Sin, no God, then yes to aliens to remove God from His unmistakable handiwork. That's just plain Vulcan logic.

This seems to be wrong on its face. 

 

Evolution on says nothing about God's existence one way or the other.

You may be conflating "Naturalism," with ,"Evolution." 

There are plenty of Christians that beleive that evolution describes how God populated the Earth with a wide variety of living organisms. That God used evolution as a secondary cause like gravity. We don't drop a glass and when it hits the floor say, "God caused my glass to fall and hit the floor." 

 

Further if God created the first life knowing Homo sapiens would evolve and once they get to achieve a certain level of intellectual capacity he will choose a male and female and give those two creatures souls creating a literal Adam and Eve, it is unclear how we lose original sin, or a need for an atoning savior,etc.

 

I don't hold that view above currently, but I don't find it to be incoherent as you suggest.

[The Barbarian]

On 8/21/2018 at 3:40 PM, Guest shiloh357 said:

Those mutations would have to produce new information in order for evolution to works. So, where is the evidence that mutations produce new information not previously contained in the genes of an animal or person? 

Any new mutation in a population increases information in that population.   It's fairly easy to calculate the information for a given gene locus.  Would you like to see an example?

 

 

[Mike Mclees]

On ‎8‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 6:55 PM, one.opinion said:

Let me make sure I am understanding what you are asking. You need to see specific DNA mutations that lead directly from one mammalian class to another in order to be convinced?

What about a paradigm shift?  

Edited March 17, 2019 by Mike Mclees

[one.opinion]

14 minutes ago, Mike Mclees said:

What about a paradigm shift?  

This doesn’t make a bit of sense to me as a response to my question.

[Spock]

On 8/21/2018 at 1:04 PM, one.opinion said:

Augustine of Hippo (354 - 430) was one of the most influential theologians of his age. His work also had a profound impact on the Reformation via Martin Luther and his work is still important to this very day. Augustine also had some very serious comments on the intersection between Christian doctrine and science. This is one of his more famous comments on the topic:

My point with this thread (and others to come) is not to argue against a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3, but to point out bad arguments that are repeatedly (and erroneously) used against evolution. If one stands up for the name of Christ, but argues against the scientific consensus regarding the process of evolution, it looks better for ALL Christians to avoid arguments "which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn".

The Second Law of Thermodynamics DOES NOT refute evolution

It has probably been a while for most of us since we first learned about the Laws of Thermodynamics back when we were in school. There are four that are commonly taught now, but if you went to school around the same decades I did, you were probably taught only 2.

First Law - Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but can be converted from one form to another.

Second Law - When energy conversion takes place, a portion of the energy is lost as entropy.

"The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; the total quantity of energy in the universe stays the same. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is about the quality of energy. It states that as energy is transferred or transformed, more and more of it is wasted. The Second Law also states that there is a natural tendency of any isolated system to degenerate into a more disordered state." (https://www.livescience.com/50941-second-law-thermodynamics.html)

Again, there is a natural tendency of any isolated system to degenerate into a more disordered state. You may have heard arguments like "Evolution can't be true! If I leave a pile of bricks in my back yard, they will not eventually organize into a building!" The key that is missing to these arguments is that ecosystems on the planet are NOT isolated. Terrestrial ecosystems on the planet are typically based on solar energy being converted to chemical energy by photosynthesizing plants and the raw chemical materials of life are passed from the producers (plants) to consumers. The consumers can be arranged in levels like in a "food chain", but the energy powering the ecosystem is the constant supply of solar energy. Now, if the sun were to hypothetically burn out overnight and the planet stopped receiving the constant energy input, the entropy of the Second Law would absolutely take over and the now-isolated system would indeed break down. But for the foreseeable future, the sun is going to keep on shining and solar energy will keep driving our ecosystems.

The principles of Thermodynamics work on a cellular level, too. Cells are able to use raw materials (primarily lipids, carbohydrates, and amino acids) to build the complicated structures that make up our cells. The Second Law is held back because of constant energy input. Plants and other photosynthesizers can directly harness that solar energy and convert it into chemical energy, while animals generally consume those plants (or other animals) to maintain energy intake that allows the temporary suspension of that Second Law. If that energy harnessing stops, then so too does the suspension of the Second Law and entropy takes over on the organic material a dead body leaves behind. There is a driving force that "temporarily overrides" the effects of Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Now on to the topic of evolution. As you are likely aware, the concept of evolution relies on mutations (or changes in DNA sequence) of organisms that are passed down to subsequent generations. We know that mutations occur constantly in individuals and if these mutations occur in cells that are directly involved in forming gametes, these mutations can be passed on. It stands to reason that most mutations are either neutral (see a wiki page on Neutral Theory of evolution) or even harmful, but the driving force of evolution is natural selection. As long as organisms are present in a system that includes continual energy input and there is a driving force to sustain change, then the Second Law of Thermodynamics in no way prevents evolution from taking place.

Have you started a thread on GOOD scientific arguments against evolution. I’d especially be interested in reading that. (I’m assuming you have a lot more scientific knowledge in these matters than I do.) 

spock

[one.opinion]

37 minutes ago, Spock said:

Have you started a thread on GOOD scientific arguments against evolution.

I haven’t - I accept the scientific theory of evolution, but as a tool of the omnipotent Creator. I just started a couple of threads attempting to influence YEC Christians to drop poor arguments. When these poor arguments are used in discussions, it reflects poorly on all Christians.

[Spock]

18 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I haven’t - I accept the scientific theory of evolution, but as a tool of the omnipotent Creator. I just started a couple of threads attempting to influence YEC Christians to drop poor arguments. When these poor arguments are used in discussions, it reflects poorly on all Christians.

I just started reading this thread so I apologize for any inconvenience.

Did you just say that you accept the scientific theory of evolution meaning man evolved from goo to fish to amphibian up to ape and finally to man?  And that first man from ape was Adam. Is this what you believe? Thanks for clearing this up with me. 

Spock