Bad scientific arguments against evolution: Part 1

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Abdicate said:

Evolution falsely claims that we came from goo and became man through mutations. This isn't possible on the simplest of life forms let alone any complex system. However, the evil of evolution, besides its attitude to get rid of God, is that without a literal Adam and Eve, there is no literal original sin, and no original sin, no need of Savior.

The statistics just do not support evolution in any way with the 100's of knife edge conditions in the universe that if any one of them were off by just 0.00012%, life would not and could not exist.

Finally, structured information is not and cannot exist randomly. DNA contains information and it contains the word of God. Mathematics is the universal language and Pi is in Genesis 1:1 within 0.00012% and Euler's number is in John 1:1 within 0.00014%; the very wiggle room of life. Genesis 1:1 is God's signature in Hebrew and mathematics.

A few quick comments (sorry, not much time to spare tonight):

1. These arguments could be used to counter claims of evolution without God. That is absolutely NOT what I am doing.

2. This is unrelated to the OP. My purpose with this thread is to show how some arguments against evolution are very poor and reflect poorly on not only the Christian using the argument, but to the rest of Christians, by extension.

1 hour ago, Abdicate said:

I won't do your own homework, so don't ask me for proof. If you want the truth, then you can do your own studies.

3. Sorry, my brother, if you make the claim then it is YOUR homework to support it, not mine. You are perfectly welcome to make unsupported claims, but it doesn't allow for very good conversation.

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

The point is that if thermodynamics is not preventing evolution from taking place, where is the evidence of evolution taking place in terms of mutations that should be adding brand new information?  

Mutations come in tremendous variety. Although most are just a simple change in one of the DNA "letters", there are many other ways in which DNA sequences can be altered from one generation to the next. The Second Law of Thermodynamics can be described as "entropy (randomness) is always increasing". Since living organisms will continually undergo mutations as long as they are alive, these random changes are constantly occurring in every cell. Most of these mutations are neither beneficial nor harmful, but as frequently as these changes take place, some will occur that are harmful and a very tiny fraction may provide a benefit to the organism. The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not say that no mutations will ever provide a benefit to an organism, only that mutation will occur (entropy at the DNA level).

 

3 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

where is the evidence of evolution taking place in terms of mutations that should be adding brand new information?  

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking here. Are you asking "how do new genes hypothetically come into being?" or "how do genes hypothetically take on new functions?" These are different (and much better) arguments from the "Second Law" arguments.

[Guest shiloh357]

8 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Mutations come in tremendous variety. Although most are just a simple change in one of the DNA "letters", there are many other ways in which DNA sequences can be altered from one generation to the next. The Second Law of Thermodynamics can be described as "entropy (randomness) is always increasing". Since living organisms will continually undergo mutations as long as they are alive, these random changes are constantly occurring in every cell. Most of these mutations are neither beneficial nor harmful, but as frequently as these changes take place, some will occur that are harmful and a very tiny fraction may provide a benefit to the organism. The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not say that no mutations will ever provide a benefit to an organism, only that mutation will occur (entropy at the DNA level).

 

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking here. Are you asking "how do new genes hypothetically come into being?" or "how do genes hypothetically take on new functions?" These are different (and much better) arguments from the "Second Law" arguments.

I started another thread about this and have put your quote over there so as not to take this thread off course.

[enoob57]

19 hours ago, 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.

Your argument cannot exist without first destroying the hermeneutic process of extrapolating intent of written material... so the very start of your statement is self defeating:

My point with this thread (and others to come) is not to argue against a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3,

The Second Law of Thermodynamics DOES NOT refute evolution No it refutes the idea of eternal matter as to life existing within infinitely... an infinite list of uncaused causes is not sanity but an uncaused causal effects sane results.... 

[enoob57]

12 hours ago, Abdicate said:

The first issue is that no one knows, beyond the word of God, what the beginning was like. What I mean is that today's evidence is the results of the flood, not creation. Everything observable today was changed by the flood. For instance, all carbon readings are skewed because of the flood. Therefore we do not have a basis to link today's evidence with anything prior to the flood. 

Evolution falsely claims that we came from goo and became man through mutations. This isn't possible on the simplest of life forms let alone any complex system. However, the evil of evolution, besides its attitude to get rid of God, is that without a literal Adam and Eve, there is no literal original sin, and no original sin, no need of Savior.

The statistics just do not support evolution in any way with the 100's of knife edge conditions in the universe that if any one of them were off by just 0.00012%, life would not and could not exist.

Finally, structured information is not and cannot exist randomly. DNA contains information and it contains the word of God. Mathematics is the universal language and Pi is in Genesis 1:1 within 0.00012% and Euler's number is in John 1:1 within 0.00014%; the very wiggle room of life. Genesis 1:1 is God's signature in Hebrew and mathematics.

Most scientists have no desire to agree with the word of God and so if they see that it does, they change something to remove it. Thankfully, they're ignorant of the word of God and things get published. Even science points to the idea that the whole universe if just a form of a hologram agreeing with the word of God. Quantum physics is blowing all the junk science of evolution out the window and proving the word of God hand over fist. Even the leading evolutionist has turned from billions of years to billions of miles - yes, to aliens - because he cannot get around the facts that there is a Designer.

Every scientist that delves into the speed of light anomalies ends up defrocked by their peers. Why? Because the speed of light is not constant when measure against time but is constant when measured against anything else. It is slowing down compared to time. When calculated backwards, it comes to under 7000 years. The word of God is 100% accurate and means what it says and says what it means. Anyone who attempts to allegorize it is simply a fool like a child telling their parent they can't see the child because the child covered his eyes.

I won't do your own homework, so don't ask me for proof. If you want the truth, then you can do your own studies.

We know the evidence is perfectly aligned to God's Word for God's Word is the designer … we also know that few there be that find it! So what we see in the field of science is merely agreeing with what God has only said 

Rom 1:21-25

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.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
KJV

it is the exactness of the description to evolutionary thought that God speaks....

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, Abdicate said:

Evolution does not exist. Plain and simple. There is no evidence at all. It's more than pseudoscience, it's science fiction.

I'm afraid you are incorrect. I can show you dozens of examples of evolution that we can observe directly, so you'll need to specify what aspect of evolution you believe does not exist. There absolutely is evidence - both direct and indirect.

 

2 hours ago, Abdicate said:

This is why they hide the lack of evidence to such a distant past that no one can find it.

Who is "they" and what specifically did they hide? How do you know they hid it if no one can find it?

2 hours ago, Abdicate said:

Why did it stop? If evolution exists, why does it not continue?

Why do you say it stopped? As I previously mentioned, I can show you dozens of examples of evolution that we can observe directly.

2 hours ago, Abdicate said:

Where are the half human half ape?

If you are asking about transitional species between humans and other primates, they became extinct. However, the Smithsonian website has a great series of pages on transitional humanoid fossils. (http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils)

2 hours ago, Abdicate said:

Where are the half fish half ape?

There should not be any such thing according to scientific explanation of evolution. But if you are looking for transitional fossils between fish and terrestrial vertebrates, you can look here (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12052-009-0119-2)

2 hours ago, Abdicate said:

Why would B through Y not still exist?

If transitional fossils were found for half of the steps from B to Y, skeptics would demand to find more fossils for the other half.

[Guest]

On ‎8‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 4:29 PM, one.opinion said:

This thread isn't about me trying to convince anyone about the legitimacy of a evolutionary perspective. It is much more about getting Young-Earth Creationists to abandon poor arguments against evolution that can be easily refuted with a 5-minute session on Google. The particular bad argument addressed on this thread is the argument that evolution is refuted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Most YEC have a limited understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.  My educational background includes Classical Thermodynamics, Applied Thermodynamics and a graduate level course in Advanced Theoretical Thermodynamics.  The 2nd Law is much deeper than the casual poster understands using it to try to build a case against evolution.  Most posters would even lose interest in the argument.  To frame the argument properly, one would have to get into the nuts and bolts of Physics and Chemistry, and of course, observable phenomena.  Few here have even attempted that because it would put most people to sleep.  DNA makes a simpler argument that if written correctly, would at least give TE something to think about.  A study of viruses (a hobby of mine) would be one place to start, or the arguments of Thomas Aquinas for the existence of God.  But YEC, they are akin to the Flat-Earthers.

[enoob57]

4 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

Most YEC have a limited understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.  My educational background includes Classical Thermodynamics, Applied Thermodynamics and a graduate level course in Advanced Theoretical Thermodynamics.  The 2nd Law is much deeper than the casual poster understands using it to try to build a case against evolution.  Most posters would even lose interest in the argument.  To frame the argument properly, one would have to get into the nuts and bolts of Physics and Chemistry, and of course, observable phenomena.  Few here have even attempted that because it would put most people to sleep.  DNA makes a simpler argument that if written correctly, would at least give TE something to think about.  A study of viruses (a hobby of mine) would be one place to start, or the arguments of Thomas Aquinas for the existence of God.  But YEC, they are akin to the Flat-Earthers.

What through complexity has duped your thinking into evolutionary possibility... we simply rest in The Word of God that says 'from dust thou art and to dust thou shalt return' plus God's truth is not hidden in the complex but rather the simple

1 Cor 1:27-29

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
KJV

so as to put it not in complexity but simple -heat loss to the point of no life existing as we know life... 2^nd law of thermodynamics 

Edited August 23, 2018 by enoob57

[Guest]

1 minute ago, enoob57 said:

What through complexity has duped your thinking into evolutionary possibility... we simply rest in The Word of God that says 'from dust thou art and to dust thou shalt return' plus God's truth is not hidden in the complex but rather the simple

1 Cor 1:27-29

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
KJV

so as to put it not in complexity but simple -heat loss to the point of no life existing as we know life... 2^nd law of thermodynamics 

Sorry ... I dozed off for a minute there.  With God, all things are possible.  You need to do a bit more studying on what the 2nd law of thermodynamics means.  It neither supports nor denies the Theory of Evolution.  I personally am not a believer in evolution under any of its iterations.  However, the fact of an Old Earth is foolish to ignore.  I am and continue to be an Old Earth Creationist, aka OEC.

[one.opinion]

3 minutes ago, Abdicate said:

I knew you believed it and didn't want to refute it. I believe the word of God and Adam and Eve existed, and Jesus came and died to pay for our sin. 

I do too, my brother, first and foremost! I owe everything to Jesus. I don’t owe science, but learning more about it shows me more about God’s amazing creation.