[_ Old Earth _] Debunking Evolution:

[Lewis]

Debunking Evolution:problems between the theory and reality;
the false science of evolution​

And read it all, Darwin was a lie

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

​

 

[Barbarian]

Quite a few errors. This guy has confused abiogenesis and evolution, asserted limits to variation that no one can show exist, and is under the impression that the fossil record of multicellular organisms begins suddenly in the Cambrian.

Even most creationist sites avoid those errors.

 

[Adam]

Yeah, you can't have any credibility on a claim that evolution has been debunked if you don't understand that evolution and abiogenesis are not the same.

It's not quite as bad as confusing evolution with the big bang, but still, even if someone were to discredit abiogenesis absolutely, it still has no bearing on the theory of evolution.

 

[Asyncritus]

This is another piece of nonsense: that abiogenesis and evolution are not the same thing.

Can you imagine the howls of glee that will come from the evolution camp if some scientist produces life in his test tubes some day?

I can imagine what talkorigins and National Geographic will be saying!

But what do the abiogenesis people say about his point?

[FONT=times, times new roman, serif]Much effort has been directed to analyses of organic compounds in carbonaceous chondrites because of their implications for organic chemical evolution and the origin of life.

[/FONT] Such relationships help define the physicochemical conditions that could underlie the early steps in pre-biotic
evolution.The Molecular Roots of Compositional Inheritance

The lumisphere, a new model of pre-biotic evolution

B. Heinz, W. Ried and H. D. Pflug


The origin of the RNA world: Co-evolution of genes and metabolism

[PDF] from santafe.edu
SD Copley, E Smith… - Bioorganic chemistry, 2007 - Elsevier

• We could go on, but this sample shows that abiogenesis and evolution are not all that far apart, and we shouldn't kid ourselves that they aren't.
  

 

[Barbarian]

This is another piece of nonsense: that abiogenesis and evolution are not the same thing.

Let's test your assumption. Show us where. in the four points of Darwinian theory, there are claims about the origin of life. Or show us what in genetics makes a claim like that. My guess is you'll dodge again; you've already seen that evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life.

Can you imagine the howls of glee that will come from the evolution camp if some scientist produces life in his test tubes some day?

They can already make things more alive than viruses. But that doesn't impact evolutionary theory.

But what do the abiogenesis people say about his point?

Much effort has been directed to analyses of organic compounds in carbonaceous chondrites because of their implications for organic chemical evolution and the origin of life.

"Chemical evolution" isn't biological evolution. Notice this is about the orgin of life, not how populations change.

We could go on

But it's all pointless, as you see. All you have to do is show that Darwin's theory was about the origin of life, or that the geneticists who forged the modern synthesis put something like that in the new theory. If you can do that, you've made your point. If you can't, you fail again.

Let's see what you can do. I'm guessing dodge and excuses.

 

[Adam]

Yeah, this is like saying that since the sun and the ocean both contain hydrogen, they are the same.

The characteristics and properties of hydrogen have direct impact on both, but that does not mean they have the same implication.

Perhaps one day the explanation for abiogenesis will include some aspect of evolution or it will be proven that they have a co-dependant relationship. But for now that is not the case.

And your op doesn't disprove abiogenesis anyway so you are really wasting your time.

 

[Barbarian]

Or maybe it's yet another abandoned threat by Async. Hard to say.

 

[zeke]

"Chemical evolution" isn't biological evolution. Notice this is about the orgin of life, not how populations change.

You remain confused – chemical evolution (abiogenesis) has always been included in Darwinian lore. Naturalism cannot exist without life arising from non-life via purely naturalistic means (an absurdity). Our atheist friends must believe in the myth of the “prebiotic soup†by great faith - they have no other choice.

"When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." (GEORGE WALD, Nobel Laureate)​

 

[Adam]

You remain confused – chemical evolution (abiogenesis) has always been included in Darwinian lore. Naturalism cannot exist without life arising from non-life via purely naturalistic means (an absurdity). Our atheist friends must believe in the myth of the “prebiotic soup†by great faith - they have no other choice.

"When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." (GEORGE WALD, Nobel Laureate)
​

That's a false dichotomy.

Whether the fallacy stems from you or the irrelevant authority of someone who won a prize is of no consequence. It's still wrong.

 

[zeke]

That's a false dichotomy.

Whether the fallacy stems from you or the irrelevant authority of someone who won a prize is of no consequence. It's still wrong.

Prove it wrong. Two choices - life arising from non-life via purely naturalistic means (an absurdity) or special creation from the mind of a Creator-God - what other options do you offer?

 

[Adam]

life originating from non-spontaneous, non-supernatural means or spontaneous generation originating in the mind of God.

tada!


Also, just because a concept is absurd to you because you don't or are unwilling to understand it, does not mean that it is not plausible.

 

[Asyncritus]

Let's test your assumption. Show us where. in the four points of Darwinian theory, there are claims about the origin of life. Or show us what in genetics makes a claim like that. My guess is you'll dodge again; you've already seen that evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life.

Isn't it obvious that there's some evolutionary idea in their heads someplace? If not, why should they bother to use the word in the titles of their articles?

But it's equally obvious that you can't have evolution of living things without living things to evolve!

But the pernicious idea is right there from the beginning. And abiogenesis is nonsense, since life cannot come from the dead, and no amount of anything will make it do so.

 

[Asyncritus]

Also, just because a concept is absurd to you because you don't or are unwilling to understand it, does not mean that it is not plausible.

Oh yeah. There's an awful lot of plausible tripe. Ask any music hall comedian or evolutionist. Not quite the same thing, but...

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
"Chemical evolution" isn't biological evolution. Notice this is about the orgin of life, not how populations change.

You remain confused – chemical evolution (abiogenesis) has always been included in Darwinian lore.

If so, you could easily meet the challenge Async is dodging:

Barbarian suggests:
Let's test your assumption. Show us where. in the four points of Darwinian theory, there are claims about the origin of life. Or show us what in genetics makes a claim like that. My guess is you'll dodge again; you've already seen that evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life.


Async seems to be unable to do that. Maybe you can do better. You're on.

Naturalism cannot exist without life arising from non-life via purely naturalistic means (an absurdity).

Darwin suggested God did it.

Our atheist friends must believe in the myth of the “prebiotic soup†by great faith - they have no other choice.

However, evolutionary theory is indifferent to the issue. If God zapped them into being as Darwin suggests, that would be fine with evolutionary theory. However, God already endorsed abiogenesis; He says the earth and waters brought forth life.

He does most things that way in this world.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
Let's test your assumption. Show us where. in the four points of Darwinian theory, there are claims about the origin of life. Or show us what in genetics makes a claim like that. My guess is you'll dodge again; you've already seen that evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life.

Isn't it obvious that there's some evolutionary idea in their heads someplace? If not, why should they bother to use the word in the titles of their articles?

And Barbarian correctly predicts one again.

But it's equally obvious that you can't have evolution of living things without living things to evolve!

Yep. Evolutionary theory assumes living things began somehow,and describes how they change. If God just poofed the the first organisms into being, that would still fit evolutionary theory.

So we'll do a second call, to see if you can get it together this time:
Let's test your assumption. Show us where. in the four points of Darwinian theory, there are claims about the origin of life. Or show us what in genetics makes a claim like that. My guess is you'll dodge again; you've already seen that evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life.

 

[Adam]

Oh yeah. There's an awful lot of plausible tripe. Ask any music hall comedian or evolutionist. Not quite the same thing, but...

Forgive me, but this appears as gibberish to me.

I simply have no idea of what you are trying to communicate here.


What am I supposed to ask a music hall comedian and for what purpose?

 

[Barbarian]

Strange. In college, I tried to make a living as a stand-up comic. Wasn't very good at it, although I was able to get some places to pay me for doing it.

Mostly, I learned how to deal with fools, drunks, and hecklers. Which has been a valuable skill on message boards.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Debunking Evolution:problems between the theory and reality;
the false science of evolution​

And read it all, Darwin was a lie

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

​

The theory of Evolution is that all living organisms adapt and change based on their ecosystems.


The mechanism that causes this is natural selection and mutations in the genome.


The website you linked to did not disprove this, so the theory still stands.

 

[zeke]

Barbarian suggests:
Let's test your assumption. Show us where. in the four points of Darwinian theory, there are claims about the origin of life.

You struggle – chemical evolution (abiogenesis) has always been included in evolutionism because that worldview cannot exist without life arising from non-life via purely naturalistic means (an absurdity). Remember - classical Darwinism (atheism) does not allow a place for a Creator-God.

 

[zeke]

The theory of Evolution is that all living organisms adapt and change based on their ecosystems.

The ToE is based on the metaphysical notion of universal common ancestry.