[_ Old Earth _] Darwinism completely refutes ID

[PDoug]

The problem is that taken as a whole, humanity has not created human beings greater than itself, for the over 6,000 years it has been in existence

how is that a problem? who said that we would?
besides, whole species don't evolve, populations do.

My point is that it is reasonable to dismiss the case of two disabled human beings creating a normal human being, because when all is said and done, humans have never created other humans that were substantially greater than those found in the general population. Therefore the principle of the less sophisticated creating the substantially more sophisticated is not seen in nature - even in human beings over the course of 6,000 years.

That is why evolution so suspect: because it proposes something that is virtually impossible to prove,

natural selection, sexual selection, beneficial mutations, speciation, and many other things HAVE been proven.

The problem is that many of the things that you mentioned have problems, or are seen only in special circumstances, so that it would be a stretch to say that they make strong contributions to this proposed mechanism called evolution. E.g. beneficial mutations. Not only are they very difficult to find, they usually occur at the expense of other areas of functioning in an organism. E.g. sickle cell anemia. Also, speciation occurs or do not occur based on the definition you use. (Please read here for more on the issue.)

Even if you were to get over all these hurdles, there is the additional hurdle that they would have to work in concert to bring about evolution, and there is no evidence at all that this concerted action takes place.

and it proposes a principle that we just do not see around us: that something less sophisticated can create something that is substantially more sophisticated.

not how you define it. Evolution doesn't say humans will EVER have babies that have wings, from one generation to the next, etc.
You're simply misinterpreting it.
It's more like a spectrum of colors in a computer. From one pixel to another, you might not be able to tell the difference in color since it's so tiny. But as you keep on moving through the pixels, the tiny differences add up and you CAN tell a difference from the original pixel. Very simple concept really.

Again, evolution is putting forward something that it cannot prove. Where is the virtually unassailable proof that species improve overall in baby steps? Where is the indisputable evidence of transitional species living millions of years ago? Why don't we see transitional species all around us today? What about the mathematical unlikelihood that mutations occurred adequately so as to affect a range of internal systems, to support the occurence of a transitional specie?

The fact of the matter is that even Occam's razor favors intelligent design, because it is simpler to say life was created by creators who were signficantly greater than us, in much the same way we see all around us, the more sophisticated creating the less sophisticated.

 

[Lyric's Dad]

Darwinism completely refutes ID

LOL! Actually, such an asinine claim is not really even worth a debate.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Cause and Effect

Let's see....what is a sufficient cause of human life:

1. The cause must be living.

2. The cause must be more complex than human life.

3. The cause must be creative.

4. The cause must posess intelligence.

5. Yada, Yada, Yada


Hmmmmm...Does this seem to desrcibe matter?


Romans 1:20

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitiesâ€â€his eternal power and divine natureâ€â€have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

 

[Grengor]

I must be missing something Charlie, but.... whaaaaat?

 

[Oran_Taran]

My point is that it is reasonable to dismiss the case of two disabled human beings creating a normal human being, because when all is said and done, humans have never created other humans that were substantially greater than those found in the general population.

and my point is that that's irrelevant. Whole species don't evolve, populations do. And populations evolve by many individuals having beneficial mutations over a long period of time.

Therefore the principle of the less sophisticated creating the substantially more sophisticated is not seen in nature

and I agree with that. You think that "substantially more sophisticated" means that a worm has a whale baby or something. That just doesn't happen, and nobody ever said it did. (at least not evolutionary biologists)

E.g. beneficial mutations. Not only are they very difficult to find, they usually occur at the expense of other areas of functioning in an organism. E.g. sickle cell anemia.

Sickle cell anemia is just an example of how a mutation isn't beneficial or bad in an absolute way. Whether a mutation is good or bad depends on the environment.
And there are PLENTY of observed beneficial mutations. Some people don't get heart disease, others are immune to HIV, bacteria become resistant to antibiotics, etc.

Also, speciation occurs or do not occur based on the definition you use. (Please read here for more on the issue.)

That's simply wrong, and apparently they didn't even read the page. Did you?
it has the examples they want.
and their antibiotic resistance is also wrong. they're right it's NOT speciation, but there have been experiments where a SINGLE bacterium (not resistant) was allowed to (asexually... no conjucation) reproduce and then the offspring developed antibiotic resistance.
There are also bacteria that can digest nylon, an ARTIFICIAL fiber.

Even if you were to get over all these hurdles, there is the additional hurdle that they would have to work in concert to bring about evolution, and there is no evidence at all that this concerted action takes place.

huh? They have been proven to happen.

Where is the virtually unassailable proof that species improve overall in baby steps?

Well, there's plenty. One are ring species. Species who'se range is really big, and there are many subspecies from one corner of the range to the other. Each subspecies can mate and have fertile offspring with the subspecies next to it, but the ones far apart can't.

Where is the indisputable evidence of transitional species living millions of years ago?

There are hundreds of transitional species.

Why don't we see transitional species all around us today?

Oh we do, all species are transitional species (except the ones who will become extinct). when say... a population of guineapigs evolve into another species, the old population would have been a transitional species.
I know that's not what you meant... because what I think you meant are not transitional species. If you meant organisms that have characteristics of other organisms, there are A LOT of them. Euglena for example. It can photosynthesize but it doesn't have a cell wall, it can eat other organisms, it has an eye spot, it can move, etc. It has characteristics of animals AND plants. (of course, animals didn't evolve from plants or the other way around, but both evolved from protists... euglena is a protist)
There's also a range of eyes, from just light sensitive patches to cuttlefish eyes, which are better than humans'.
and many others.

What about the mathematical unlikelihood that mutations occurred adequately so as to affect a range of internal systems, to support the occurence of a transitional specie?

huh?

The fact of the matter is that even Occam's razor favors intelligent design, because it is simpler to say life was created by creators who were signficantly greater than us, in much the same way we see all around us, the more sophisticated creating the less sophisticated.

actually no. It is a much simpler explanation that species evolve into another species (which has been observed) through countless tiny mutations, by methods which have been observed, etc. than to believe that some sort of intelligent thing suddenly popped out of nowhere, with enough intelligence and enough power and stuff to create the MILLIONS of species on earth.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

I must be missing something Charlie, but.... whaaaaat?

Lol...sorry.


I was merely stating the necessary and sufficient cause for life...more generally

the philosophical concept of cause and effect.

Sorry about the vagueness...it seemed their was some debating going on

concerning this issue.

Peace.

 

[protos]

OK, I'm gonna write this for the last time, from a new perspective:

Evolution was proposed by the ancient greek Lucretius in the 1st century B.C. An open enemy to Scripture his reasoning that Creationism was wrong was that something could not come out of nothing and thus the universe and the world would must have been eternal. This guy based none of his claims on objective science so his comments are dubbed as a philosophy.

Note, the greeks made so many philosophies seem like science people accepted them for millenias before they were disproven! Many of these include: spontaneous generation-life spontaneously coming from inanimate objects, the geocentric theory- that the earth was the center of the universe, the 4-elements theory (actually 5)-fire, earth, water, wind, and the celestial spheres all conjoined from earlier philosophers such as Anaximedes' element of wind, and subsequent people such as Democritus' atom.

They did propose the atom, but they had the wrong concept about it.

An ancient greek as early as the third century A.D. disproved the geocentric theory but he did not publish his conclusions based on mathematics and science due to the greek's philosophies.

YOU ARE ALL SUPPORTING ONE OF THESE ANCIENT MYTHS, THE MYTH OF EVOLUTION.

Sure, evolution sounds scientific, everything is through natural crude processes, none of the perfection that comes from God is involved, it's all raw and "scientific." Well these are the reasons I used to believe in evolution, and until I became a born-again Christian (saved by God's Grace) I thought all creationists were stubborn fundamentalists who knew nothing about science and were unwilling to learn it. It turns out that the opposite was the case. You are about to see why:

1)Abiogenesis, upholds that life can indeed come from nonlife, but through an accident that somehow makes a cell. Well this idea was proposed in the 19th century and was not utterly refuted because of their lack of understanding of the complexities of even the most primitive cell in existence. They thought that simple cells could arise from something as common as mud. Darwinists upheld that millions of years ago (note not billions), somewhere in a warm pond, a charge of electricity ran through a bunch of elements causing them to form the first cell. There are a number of problems with this theory. First of all, uracil one of the four base pairs of DNA cannot stand long in 0 degrees Celsius temperatures in water, let alone form in such a place. The compound quickly disintegrates. In fact, this has made some scientists conclude that early life supposedly formed in cold oceans.

The most primitive cell, E.Coli is about 3.45 billion years old on the evolutionist time scale. This age is of course inaccurate but the objective evidence has to be somehow fit into their evolutionist dogma. Amazingly, the simplest cell in existence, which supposedly spawned all of life, has remained the same! You'd think that it wouldn't be here after 3.45 billion years of supposed evolution but it is. Same with cockroaches. They were there since the evolutionist timescale of before the dinosaurs, and they have remained relatively the same (with some minor variations). Same with turtles-240 million years of the same turtle with absolutely NO evolution. The Coeloath, a fish thought to have been extinct "60 million" years ago, was found alive and breathing a few decades ago, EXACTLY the same. The evolutionist excuse for this is that they found the best physiological form that fits their surroundings.

Abiogenesis contradicts: the laws of chemistry, the laws of physics and the laws of chance. It has been calculated by real scientists and mathematicians that the chance of a cell arising from a primordial soup is 1 in 10 to the 190,000 power. There are only 10 to the 80th power electrons in the visible universe. Statistically, anything that has less than 1 in 10^50 chance will never happen.

The Miller experiment-In the 1950's the miller experiment took place to try to produce life from the purported elements in the early earth. The experiment produced proteinoid microspheres, that is barely made amino acids which somehow resembled proteins. These proteinoids were in themselves different from the needed amino acid structure within a protein-A protein needs either all left or all right amino acids in its structure to be able to code. In nature, in theory, never produced, proteins can only form 50% left and 50% right.

2)Evolution in itself- There is a popular misunderstanding of evolution. People see evolution as an inevitable process, much like a computer software is upgraded by a click of a button. This is not the case. Evolution is by definition a result of random recombinations which supposedly produce better fitted organisms. The problem is, evolution needs to make new genes! It does not! GENETIC MUTATIONS PRODUCE NO EVOLUTION, THEY ONLY UNSCRAMBLE GENES. This is most evident with cancer. In order for evolution to work, it needs an increase of information. There is no such increase in any kind of mutations! Ever wonder about the gap between unicellular and multicellular organisms? There are no 2-celled, 3-celled, 5-celled, 20-celled organisms. They jump to trillions of cells. How can this happen with natural processes if they can only unscramble the genome?

3)The links are missing-The supposed transitional evidence between species is indeed missing. I remember my 7th grade biology teacher saying how all that was missing was for the missing link to be found, as if everything else had been confirmed. There are no links between any species. Let's start with the beginning of the evolutionist propaganda on the "early" man. Australopithecines, supposedly the first step towards monkey-to-man evolution have been shown to be an extinct species of monkeys. In Olduvai Gorge, the main digging site in East Africa for fossils, there have been found at the same place and geological time a skeleton of an Australopithecine, A.Afarensis and Homo Habilis! This confirms that these three species weren't related at all! Next was found an "800,000" year old hut. Humans weren't supposed to even exist around that time!

4)Radiometric Dating methods-Most people think that dating-methods such as Carbon-14, Argon-Potassium and other methods "prove" that the earth is millions of years old. Note that in the 19th century, it was proposed millions of years at most, that is a few hundred thousand generations at most! This has been multiplied by 1000-fold. What you have to realize is that these methods work through a process of nuclear fission. They measure the amount by decay, thus you need to know how much of it there was in the first place. Second they don't actually measure the bones themselves, they measure the dirt around it. If they don't fit with the current view, the dates are tested again and again until a convient enough one has been found. This was demonstrated by dating the dirt around an Australopithecine skull which at first gave a date of 22Ma (Mega-anum) Million years. They tested again until a date of 4.3 or so Ma was settled. An expedition to where the Helena volcano had errupted, a group of scientists measured the newly covered tree bark earth crust. The Carbon-14 dating method gave an age of 45,000 years. The Potassium-Argon methods gave one of 45 million!

5)The Truth-Creationism at first look may look like a defense for a religious document in spite of science. The fact of the matter is that science completely supports creationism. With time, genetic mutations unscramble more and more of the genetic code. In every DNA replication there are about 3 genetic mistakes in it. In a person's lifetime their DNA accumulates lots of mistakes. This is the reason that we get old! By the time he/she has a child, the haploid cells have accumulated hundreds if not thousands of mistakes. However, since the partner also has a set of genes, some of the mistakes in one half of the genome will be compensated for by the other half making the genome "more correct." However, if two mistakes match on the same spot in the genome, the gene may be damaged. Over time however, the degeneration will become so increased that more and more of the genetic mistakes in the genome match and thus a more and more the person is degraded in health such as physical deformities, and diseases.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, the bottom line is, you can all believe whatever the soft tissue in your brain invents, but you are all left without excuse.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

I'm in the same boat as you Protos.

I was raised, just like 99.9% of students, that evolution was a

unquestionable "fact". My parents were agnostic and atheistic, so the idea

was certainly reinforced at home. They, too, were raised with the idea that

evolution was a fact. I never questioned the theory at all...I figured all

these "intelligent" scientists surely had tested the hypothesis inside and

out.

When I got a mind of my own...around 35'ish...I started to notice

discrepancies between evolution and observable theories/ laws...i.e.- First

and Second Laws of Thermodynamics; Cause and Effect; Information

Theory, etc...I was in crisis. The more I attempted to reconcile these ideas,

the more I was literally crushed to my knees. I literally had a nervous

breakdown...my whole foundation of the origins of life was ripped from

beneath me. I knew I was without excuse.

Again, the idea of intelligent design was never presented to me in my

formative years. It was thrust upon me by opening my mind and thinking

for myself.

Contrary to popular opinion, Intelligent Design is very radical, and goes

against everything we've all been taught in school, and for most, at home.

It takes true introspection, and a dislodging of the evolutionary hook we've

all been brainwashed into since young children.

 

[protos]

I'm glad that you changed your mind. You are like Copernicus, challenging the assumptions, a true scientist. :D

 

[PDoug]

My point is that it is reasonable to dismiss the case of two disabled human beings creating a normal human being, because when all is said and done, humans have never created other humans that were substantially greater than those found in the general population.

and my point is that that's irrelevant. Whole species don't evolve, populations do. And populations evolve by many individuals having beneficial mutations over a long period of time.

How was what I said irrelevant? If e.g. the population in Egypt 5,000 years ago started out having the range of human capabilities as the rest of the world, and it somehow evolved during that time, wouldn't you find Egyptian individuals having abilities significantly greater than the rest of the world? However you don't find this situation with the Egyptian or any other population - however isolated that population may have been. There is e.g. no indication that philosophers today are any smarter than they were in the past. In fact today's philosophers tend to look back on the works of philosophers who were around thousands of years ago. You see a similar situation where many current day literature are compared with those of Shakespeare.

Therefore the principle of the less sophisticated creating the substantially more sophisticated is not seen in nature

and I agree with that. You think that "substantially more sophisticated" means that a worm has a whale baby or something. That just doesn't happen, and nobody ever said it did. (at least not evolutionary biologists)

Something giving rise to another thing substantially more sophisticated doesn't have to be like a worm giving rise to a whale, or something similarly dramatic. It need only be creatures giving rise to a creature, showing traits that lie outside the range of the population of the specie, with that creature being overall more fit than members of its specie.

The overall point I've been trying to make is that the principle of something creating another thing overall greater than itself cannot be seen around us. The best we can do in this area is show creatures procreating other creatures slightly better than themselves. But even in this situation, the offspring never has abilities that lie outside the range of abilities of its own specie.

 

[PDoug]

My point is that it is reasonable to dismiss the case of two disabled human beings creating a normal human being, because when all is said and done, humans have never created other humans that were substantially greater than those found in the general population.

and my point is that that's irrelevant. Whole species don't evolve, populations do. And populations evolve by many individuals having beneficial mutations over a long period of time.

How was what I said irrelevant? If e.g. the population in Egypt 5,000 years ago started out having the range of human capabilities as the rest of the world, and it somehow evolved during that time, wouldn't you find Egyptian individuals having abilities significantly greater than the rest of the world? However you don't find this situation with the Egyptian or any other population - however isolated that population may have been. There is e.g. no indication that philosophers today are any smarter than they were in the past. In fact today's philosophers tend to look back on the works of philosophers who were around thousands of years ago. You see a similar situation where many current day literature are compared with those of Shakespeare.

Therefore the principle of the less sophisticated creating the substantially more sophisticated is not seen in nature

and I agree with that. You think that "substantially more sophisticated" means that a worm has a whale baby or something. That just doesn't happen, and nobody ever said it did. (at least not evolutionary biologists)

Something giving rise to another thing substantially more sophisticated doesn't have to be like a worm giving rise to a whale, or something similarly dramatic. It need only be creatures giving rise to a creature, showing traits that lie outside the range of the population of the specie, with that creature being overall more fit than members of its specie.

The overall point I've been trying to make is that the principle of something creating another thing overall greater than itself cannot be seen around us. The best we can do in this area is show creatures procreating other creatures slightly better than themselves. But even in this situation, the offspring never has abilities that lie outside the range of abilities of its own specie.

 

[Oran_Taran]

1)Abiogenesis, upholds that life can indeed come from nonlife, but through an accident that somehow makes a cell.

wrong. Chemistry is no accident.

They thought that simple cells could arise from something as common as mud.

nobody thinks that.

Darwinists upheld that millions of years ago (note not billions), somewhere in a warm pond, a charge of electricity ran through a bunch of elements causing them to form the first cell.

wrong, the electricity just made certain organic compounds possible, which self replicated, had mutations, natural selection took place, and after a LOT of chemical reactions and a LOT of intermediates, very simple cells arose.

First of all, uracil one of the four base pairs of DNA cannot stand long in 0 degrees Celsius temperatures in water, let alone form in such a place.

Wrong. Uracil is not part of DNA. and who cares if it can't stand/form in freezing water? Nobody said it forms in ice.

In fact, this has made some scientists conclude that early life supposedly formed in cold oceans.

... You really need to double check your posts.

The most primitive cell, E.Coli is about 3.45 billion years old on the evolutionist time scale

Wrong. E. coli is not the most primitive cell, and it's not 3.45 billion years old.

Amazingly, the simplest cell in existence, which supposedly spawned all of life, has remained the same!

of course that's wrong, for the same reasons I said before, but even if it was right, that's irrelevant. There is no reason whatsoever why simple cells wouldn't remain as such for billions, trillions, or googles of years.

You'd think that it wouldn't be here after 3.45 billion years of supposed evolution but it is. Same with cockroaches. They were there since the evolutionist timescale of before the dinosaurs, and they have remained relatively the same (with some minor variations). Same with turtles-240 million years of the same turtle with absolutely NO evolution. The Coeloath, a fish thought to have been extinct "60 million" years ago, was found alive and breathing a few decades ago, EXACTLY the same.

same as above.
Tell me, why WOULD they be changed? Why WOULD they become extinct?

The evolutionist excuse for this is that they found the best physiological form that fits their surroundings.

Exactly. They don't need to change, why would they?

Abiogenesis contradicts: the laws of chemistry, the laws of physics and the laws of chance. It has been calculated by real scientists and mathematicians that the chance of a cell arising from a primordial soup is 1 in 10 to the 190,000 power.

Wrong. They calculated it as if it were RANDOM chance. It is most definately not random. Chemistry/physics are NOT random. That completely throws off the calculation. What's more, they calculated a modern cell. They also calculated modern proteins, etc. The first life would not be a modern cell, or have modern proteins, etc.

The experiment produced proteinoid microspheres, that is barely made amino acids which somehow resembled proteins.

sigh. You don't even know what amino acids or proteins are. The experiment produced amino acids and nucleotides. Amino acids are the monomers for proteins, and nucleotides are the monomers for DNA/RNA.

These proteinoids were in themselves different from the needed amino acid structure within a protein-A protein needs either all left or all right amino acids in its structure to be able to code

huh?

In nature, in theory, never produced, proteins can only form 50% left and 50% right.

and?

The problem is, evolution needs to make new genes! It does not! GENETIC MUTATIONS PRODUCE NO EVOLUTION, THEY ONLY UNSCRAMBLE GENES.

Wrong. There are many types of mutations. Some make new genetic information, some change preexisting genes, some change preexisting DNA that doesn't code for anything, meaning they do create new genes.

Ever wonder about the gap between unicellular and multicellular organisms? There are no 2-celled, 3-celled, 5-celled, 20-celled organisms. They jump to trillions of cells.

sigh... that's right... you guessed it... WRONG.
There are hundreds of species of organisms that are 2-celled, 3-celled, etc.
From euglena, which is one, to desimids, which are two, etc. all the way to whales and enormous fungi.

)The links are missing-The supposed transitional evidence between species is indeed missing.

again, wrong. There are hundreds of transitional fossils.

I remember my 7th grade biology teacher saying how all that was missing was for the missing link to be found, as if everything else had been confirmed.

well gee, a 7th grade teacher. They're the most educated people around. And how long ago was that? lol... ok, you don't have to tell us...

Australopithecines, supposedly the first step towards monkey-to-man evolution have been shown to be an extinct species of monkeys.

Wrong yet again. Bloody hell, I've never ......
anyway... it's an extinct species of hominid. Hominids include humans. We're hominids.

In Olduvai Gorge, the main digging site in East Africa for fossils, there have been found at the same place and geological time a skeleton of an Australopithecine, A.Afarensis and Homo Habilis! This confirms that these three species weren't related at all!

yep, wrong again. I'm kind of getting tired of saying wrong...
Anyway, whole species don't evolve, populations do. Simple as that.

Note that in the 19th century, it was proposed millions of years at most, that is a few hundred thousand generations at most! This has been multiplied by 1000-fold.

They didn't even know about radioactive decay back then. Of course they had it wrong, they couldn't test their ideas! Radioactive decay was discovered in 1896, almost in the 20th century.

If they don't fit with the current view, the dates are tested again and again until a convient enough one has been found.

Wrong. They test them a lot of times and then choose the one that appears the most. For example, they may test a bone 15 times, and if 11 of the 15 say it's 2 million years old, then that's what they say.

An expedition to where the Helena volcano had errupted, a group of scientists measured the newly covered tree bark earth crust. The Carbon-14 dating method gave an age of 45,000 years. The Potassium-Argon methods gave one of 45 million!

That's because the samples they used were of rocks brought up from the bottom of the earth. When lava is coming out, it brings up rocks from the depths of the crust of the earth. They used those, so their dates were wrong.

In every DNA replication there are about 3 genetic mistakes in it.

source? by proxy I think it's wrong.

Over time however, the degeneration will become so increased that more and more of the genetic mistakes in the genome match and thus a more and more the person is degraded in health such as physical deformities, and diseases.

Yeah, that's why there is natural SELECTION.
the bad mutations die out, the good ones live. It's a very simple concept.


in short, pretty much every single thing was wrong. If the fact wasn't wrong, then the conclusion was flawed. No wonder you're a creationist, you're full of misinformation.

I started to notice discrepancies between evolution and observable theories/ laws...i.e.- First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics

That's because you don't understand them.
Organisms are not closed environments. They are ALWAYS eating. ALWAYS having external energy being pumped into them so that they WILL maintain in order, and even increase.

Cause and Effect; Information Theory, etc...I was in crisis

can you elaborate?

 

[Oran_Taran]

How was what I said irrelevant?

Because you're using assumptions not supported by evolution. You can't change the theory in order to disprove it.

the population in Egypt 5,000 years ago started out having the range of human capabilities as the rest of the world, and it somehow evolved during that time, wouldn't you find Egyptian individuals having abilities significantly greater than the rest of the world?

5,000 years is most definately not long enough for a population of humans (long chlidhoods, not many predators, not much selection really) to have evolved "abilities significantly greater" than anyone. Besides, humans are always moving around. Humans travel around the world and breed with others from far away.
And yes, 5,000 years may be a long time for humans, but in the evolutionary time scale it's just a blink of an eye.

However you don't find this situation with the Egyptian or any other population - however isolated that population may have been

some populations DO have advantages though. For example, there's a small island in italy or something with a lot of really old people. The weather, the lifestyle, and everything else is the same as regular italy (or wherever it is) so scientists concluded that they live long because of genes. They even found out that that population has been isolated for a long time and came from only a few people, supporting the hypothesis.
There are also villages in other parts of the world who are resistant to heart disease, because of the way their bodies use cholesterol, etc.
And of course speciation has been observed in organisms, from goatsbeard to mice and mosquitoes, to primroses and fruit flies.

There is e.g. no indication that philosophers today are any smarter than they were in the past. In fact today's philosophers tend to look back on the works of philosophers who were around thousands of years ago.

Well, I'll try to find the article later, but scientists testing for a specific protein in the brain found that it originated at about the same time as the enlightment, and so they said that maybe that was the cause of the enlightment, people were smarter because of a beneficial mutation. Again, I'll try to get the article later.

You see a similar situation where many current day literature are compared with those of Shakespeare.

What's wrong with your examples is that you're using things that are learned. You do not inherit your views on philosophy or your writing skills.

It need only be creatures giving rise to a creature, showing traits that lie outside the range of the population of the specie, with that creature being overall more fit than members of its specie.

You mean beneficial mutations? well, that HAS been observed. From bacterial resistance to antibiotics, to insects developing resistance to ARTIFICIAL insecticides, to bacteria being able to digest ARTIFICIAL fibers, even to those human examples I gave earlier.

The best we can do in this area is show creatures procreating other creatures slightly better than themselves

Yeah, and that's exactly how evolution works.

But even in this situation, the offspring never has abilities that lie outside the range of abilities of its own specie.

sure it does. the rest of the species don't have those beneficial mutations.
If you're thinking about speciation in a single generation, that doesn't happen. Or... actually I take that back... polyploid plants can become another species, so I guess that's one example.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

I'm in the same boat as you Protos.

I was raised, just like 99.9% of students, that evolution was a

unquestionable "fact". My parents were agnostic and atheistic, so the idea

was certainly reinforced at home. They, too, were raised with the idea that

evolution was a fact. I never questioned the theory at all...I figured all

these "intelligent" scientists surely had tested the hypothesis inside and

out.

When I got a mind of my own...around 35'ish...I started to notice

discrepancies between evolution and observable theories/ laws...i.e.- First

and Second Laws of Thermodynamics; Cause and Effect; Information

Theory, etc...I was in crisis. The more I attempted to reconcile these ideas,

the more I was literally crushed to my knees. I literally had a nervous

breakdown...my whole foundation of the origins of life was ripped from

beneath me. I knew I was without excuse.

Again, the idea of intelligent design was never presented to me in my

formative years. It was thrust upon me by opening my mind and thinking

for myself.

Contrary to popular opinion, Intelligent Design is very radical, and goes

against everything we've all been taught in school, and for most, at home.

It takes true introspection, and a dislodging of the evolutionary hook we've

all been brainwashed into since young children.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

That's because you don't understand them.
Organisms are not closed environments. They are ALWAYS eating. ALWAYS having external energy being pumped into them so that they WILL maintain in order, and even increase.

Oran, you realize there's no such thing as a closed system, right?

And having available energy, and transferring that energy into useful work

requires information. Information, as far as I know, has only been produced

by intelligence. The information available in DNA and RNA is the mechanism

by which organisms transfer energy into useful work. It's the useful work

that increases complexity...not the energy...a lot of people don't get this at

first.

Peace Bro

 

[Oran_Taran]

Oran, you realize there's no such thing as a closed system, right?

yep, so what?

And having available energy, and transferring that energy into useful work requires information. Information, as far as I know, has only been produced by intelligence

define information.
You could say tree rings have information about past earth's climate, etc.

It's the useful work that increases complexity...not the energy...a lot of people don't get this at first.

Useful work requires energy.

So, what does this all have to do with the laws of thermodynamics?
The first law is the conservation of energy law right? Ok, are you saying that doesn't happen in organisms?
and the second one is the entropy one... but entropy only works in "closed systems" (or the WHOLE system), and organisms by themselves aren't closed systems. The entropy of the universe (the whole system) IS decreasing, as organisms DO release heat and stuff, the thing is that there is a lot of energy coming into organisms.
And anyway, the second law of thermodynamics being used as an argument against evolution is just plain wrong. What about organisms developing? we were one cell at first, now we're trillions of very specialized cells organized into tissues, organs, organ systems, and the whole organism.
I'm not exactly sure what you meant since you never explained anything, but neither organisms nor evolution violate any laws of thermodynamics.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

The first law is the conservation of energy law right? Ok, are you saying that doesn't happen in organisms?

The First Law applies to all matter.

That's because you don't understand them.
Organisms are not closed environments. They are ALWAYS eating. ALWAYS having external energy being pumped into them so that they WILL maintain in order, and even increase.

Oran, you realize there's no such thing as a closed system, right?

yep, so what?

Because you brought up the fact that organisms are not closed systems. So,

if their no such thing as closed systems, your statement is irrelevant.

define information.
You could say tree rings have information about past earth's climate, etc.

Tree rings in them self have no information. It's the interpretation of the

tree rings that becomes information when communicated.

Without the communication, information is meaningless.

Tree DNA and RNA do contain information that is communicated to other

structures within the tree. It's this communcation coupled with energy that

allows the tree, in it's formative stages, to increase in complexity. Energy

has no organizational properties, and is subject to the Second Law just as

matter is.

Useful work requires energy.

Correct. Useful work also require a program, or information, to guide it into

increasing organization of matter.

What about organisms developing? we were one cell at first, now we're trillions of very specialized cells organized into tissues, organs, organ systems, and the whole organism.

Oran, you can't use evolution to prove evolution. that's circular reasoning.

Unless your saying at conception, we are one cell to begin with. But the

intructions/ information for building the entire organism is contained within

the DNA of the original cell. Pretty darn cool!!

I'm not exactly sure what you meant since you never explained anything, but neither organisms nor evolution violate any laws of thermodynamics.

Evolution does violate the First and Second Laws. The first law states matter

can neither be detroyed or created. The Second Law States that without

energy and a program to guide that energy, all matter becomes less and

less organized (entropy).

Peace

 

[Drew]

Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. This has been dealt with many, many times, so I will not go down that road. I would be surprised if any credentialled scientist, even a Christian one, would agree with this claim. It is simply not true.

Please, fellow Christians, become scientifically literate!!!

 

[Oran_Taran]

Oran, you can't use evolution to prove evolution. that's circular reasoning

That's not evolution, it's development. From zygote to adult.

Unless your saying at conception, we are one cell to begin with. But the intructions/ information for building the entire organism is contained within the DNA of the original cell. Pretty darn cool!!

Yeah, and your point is?

The first law states matter can neither be detroyed or created.
What the hell does that have to do with evolution? evolution says N-O-T-H-I-N-G about creating matter.
Did you mean the big bang? No wonder. You don't even know what evolution is. Tell you what, go find out what evolution really is and THEN start talking about it. OK?

[quote:240dc]The Second Law States that without energy and a program to guide that energy, all matter becomes less and less organized (entropy).

[/quote:240dc]
It says no such thing about any program.
first off, it says "the total entropy of any thermodynamically isolated system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value."
If you notice it says ISOLATED SYSTEM. Meaning it only works for CLOSED systems. Organisms are NOT closed systems, so the second law doesn't apply to them. (it does, since they're part of the universe, but not by themselves)
and that can be proved by development. As organisms DEVELOP (not evolve), they become increasingly organized and complex.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Quote:
Unless your saying at conception, we are one cell to begin with. But the intructions/ information for building the entire organism is contained within the DNA of the original cell. Pretty darn cool!!

Yeah, and your point is?

My point is the info...where did the info come from that's guiding this whole

process.

"the total entropy of any thermodynamically isolated system tends to increase over time, approaching a maximum value."
If you notice it says ISOLATED SYSTEM. Meaning it only works for CLOSED systems. Organisms are NOT closed systems, so the second law doesn't apply to them.

Come on Oran, we already went over this. There is no such thing as a

isolated system...so your point is irrelevant.

Oran, you realize there's no such thing as a closed system, right?

yep, so what?

So according to your logic, the Second Law does'nt apply to anything...come on...do you really buy that?

The only instance where the Second Law does'nt apply is where energy is

available and there's a set of intructions to guide the energy into useful

work. Even then, the reversal of entropy is temporary.

What the hell does that have to do with evolution? evolution says N-O-T-H-I-N-G about creating matter.
Did you mean the big bang? No wonder. You don't even know what evolution is. Tell you what, go find out what evolution really is and THEN start talking about it. OK?

Wow...pretty arrogant there Oran...you must have some very high

credentials to dispense statements like that. Do you hold a Phd in biology

or archeology or something of the like?

Give us your actual field experience working with applied evolution. My

guess is your still a student parroting his professors...am I right?

If I'm wrong, then I apologize...but your statements mimic a evolution

textbook.

As organisms DEVELOP (not evolve), they become increasingly organized and complex.

I couldn't agree more.

Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. This has been dealt with many, many times, so I will not go down that road. I would be surprised if any credentialled scientist, even a Christian one, would agree with this claim. It is simply not true.

Please, fellow Christians, become scientifically literate!!!

There is one consideration, however, which goes well beyond the implications of the above difficulties. Not only is there no evidence that evolution ever has taken place, but there is also firm evidence that evolution never could take place. The law of increasing entropy is an impenetrable barrier which no evolutionary mechanism yet suggested has ever been able to overcome. Evolution and entropy are opposing and mutually exclusive concepts. If the entropy principle is really a universal law, then evolution must be impossible.... It can hardly be questioned that evolution is at least superficially contradicted by entropy. The obvious prediction from the evolution model of a universal principle that increases order is confronted by the scientific fact of a universal principle that decreases order.Nevertheless evolutionists retain faith that, somehow, evolution and entropy can co-exist, even though they don’t know how...By far the majority of evolutionists, however, attempt to deal with this Second Law argument by retreating to the "open system" refuge. They maintain that, since the Second Law applies only to isolated systems (from which external sources of information and order are excluded), the argument is irrelevant.

Henry Morris, Ph.D.





Peace