Scientific and logical objections to evolution...

[RiaX]

OMG i had such an epic reply and I pressed the mouse button on the side and it went back and I lost it .... im not typing it again

 

[Swa]

Evidence for creation please.

Given

Could you name the fallacy please? I so hate to commit fallacies.

Not sure but I assumed you were referring to the false dilemma.

Mutations don't happen? Are you for real?

That's what evolution claims.

You ask me how God does his magic and when I say I have no ****ing idea, I don't think either God or magic exists, that is telling to you? erm ok then.

It has a simple answer. Either my scenario fits with evolution or not. It's change and change is evolution so it's evolution right?

I don't get why you guys don't just say: okay Swa, you're right, you win.

Unless you want to see 400 posts become 1000 posts of the same bs. Obviously he'll just laugh off any evidence that we present.

He's not seeking truth, he's here to win his argument.

It's like those people who believe in ancient aliens or conspiracy theorists who wack to tragedy, there is no convincing them.

You can't win arguments against these sorts of extreme fundamentalists.

You can win court cases though, courts require evidence, thank jesus!

And you are seeking truth? Why is it so hard to admit that you don't know?

Nope, not according to my definition. according to your wishes apparently.

Your definition defines complexity as how much it takes to describe something. So by your definition things has to become less complex to become more orderly. But we see the opposite happening.

Nope, you're not paying attention. We are using my definition of complexity which is unrelated to thermodynamics. Keep up.

You can't claim what is related or not contrary to the facts.

Okay, excuse me for bluntly copying and pasting from another forum, but these responses are so well presented I can't ignore it.

From the same page from rationalskeptismforums.org I linked to earlier, obviously Swa did not take the time to read through it as this would have clearly explained the holes in his laws of thermodynamics argument.

Part 1:

Let's take it step by step:

While covering this topic, it's also necessary to deal with the canard that entropy equals 'disorder'. This is a non-rigorous view of entropy that scientists engaged in precise work discarded some time ago. Not least because there are documented examples of systems that have a precisely calculated entropy increase after spontaneously self-organising into well-defined structures. Phospholipids are the classic example of such a system - a suspension of phospholipids in aqueous solution will spontaneously self-assemble into structures such as micelles, bilayer sheets and liposomes upon receiving an energy input consisting of nothing more than gentle agitation. In other words, just shake the bottle.

The continual denial yet it is used as shown in this manner by an evolutionist. Nobody claims that entropy equals disorder but that entropy increases are generally accompanied by increases in disorder. This has been determined true by scientists who rigorously tested this idea. What's ignored here is that something had to provide an initial entropy decrease. To decrease thermodynamic entropy something had to add energy and (from the wiki article as well) this is accompanied by increased disorder. On the whole entropy has increased and order has decreased. What's also ignored is that local order requires a mechanism. Provide us with the mechanism and there's no problem.

All of these peer reviewed papers establish, courtesy of rigorous empirical and theoretical work, that evolution is perfectly consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I cover several of these in detail in this post, and it should be noted here that the notion that evolution was purportedly in "violation" of the Second Law of Thermodynamics was rejected in a paper written in 1922, which means that creationists who erect this canard are ignorant of scientific literature published over eighty years ago.

1922? Seriously? Firstly a paper rejecting something does not make it untrue and secondly there have been papers since then that support it so which one is correct? They can't reject it without a mechanism. See it all comes down to the fact that no mechanism is provided but one is assumed. Evolution can't create a mechanism because without one evolution doesn't even start.

 

[DJ...]

Doubtful, it is after all a 'complex' issue.

Define "complex"...

Obviously he meant it within a different context...

 

[RiaX]

uhm since when evolution claims mutations dont occur ?

 

[alloytoo]

Your definition defines complexity as how much it takes to describe something.

Yes, a defined, useful and practical measure.

So by your definition things has to become less complex to become more orderly. But we see the opposite happening.

I also said that 0% antropy would be as complex as 100% entropy in an isolated system.

You can't claim what is related or not contrary to the facts.

Yet you do so all the time.

Notwithstanding, while my definition of complexity can certainly be used to describe the thermodynamic states, it is a purely mathematical measure of information.

 

[alloytoo]

Define "complex"...

Obviously he meant it within a different context...

KHHHHHHHHAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!

 

[Swa]

Yet you do so all the time.

Notwithstanding, while my definition of complexity can certainly be used to describe the thermodynamic states, it is a purely mathematical measure of information.

And use the facts to prove it. Still waiting for that mechanism but since I'm not going to get it will be moving on.

 

[alloytoo]

And use the facts to prove it.

Prove what? It's a definition

Still waiting for that mechanism but since I'm not going to get it will be moving on.

Mechanism for defining complexity?

what are you smoking?

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

As soon as creation came in to the picture here this discussion should have been moved to PD. Swa clearly has a bias towards biblical creation which is just not science.

He has also pulled out every creationist argument against evolution in the book which have all been debunked over and over again in the scientific world.

He will not accept any answers provided no matter how valid it is.

I have no objection with people having different viewpoints, if somebody doesn't want to accept a scientific theory then so be it but just take a step back and ask yourself why are arguing against proven science? I actually find it disgusting that people who have no background on the science at hand use other scientific explanations (which they also have very little knowledge of) to bludgeon work that has taken many scientists life times to achieve. If you are truly serious about disproving a scientific theory, go study it and then spend a good few years in the field and then come back to us.

If you want to be a pilot, go train to be a pilot. I trust the pilot because they have extensive knowledge and experience that has taken years acquiring. If they don't have the knowledge then we die but we sure going to know about it.

Swa, if you want answers just Google: "Top creationist arguments debunked". There you will find all the arguments you used here and more. I think enough time has been wasted here.

 

[Nerfherder]

Prove what? It's a definition


Mechanism for defining complexity?

what are you smoking?

http://qkme.me/3q90n2

 

[porchrat]

LOL correct me if I am wrong but it looks like even after that decimating set of posts Swa is still arguing the thermodynamics garbage?

Pathetic.

Move this topic to PD where it now belongs. I dread the day when Swa can post in there.

 

[CoolBug]

And you are seeking truth? Why is it so hard to admit that you don't know?

If I don't know something, I'm not ashamed or embarrassed to admit it.

I don't know many things, what started the big bang for example.

Evolution however, I've done enough research to know it's true. Not just internet clicky clicky, I've been to all sorts of museums, the cradle of human kind, I've been to caves and seen sites where they're currently still excavating hominid fossils.

There have been more hominid fossils found in South Africa than the rest of the world combined so it's embarrassing and pathetic that you dismiss it.

Your loss though.

 

[RiaX]

Evolution however, I've done enough research to know it's true. Not just internet clicky clicky, I've been to all sorts of museums, the cradle of human kind, I've been to caves and seen sites where they're currently still excavating hominid fossils.

What a cumbersome way to prove evolution exists. Just use bacterial resistance. You can prove evolution exists in 5 hours, and you can see it happening in real time with your own two eyes.

Though we of people of logic and reason (i.e scientists) should not be so defensive of our theories. Then we are no better than the fanatical, they believe in words in books written by men of past, and we follow the mathematics of men written of past that has been built on to provide this so called "truth". If you are truely a man of science and intellect then you would realise the truth and that is 'There is no absolute truth'. By fanatically believing the most recent research you are turning objective science into a religion, blind faith into writings.

I can prove evolution and I can formulate a theory of evolution by piecing the information and facts that has been discovered over time. For example:

1) I know evolution, the change of a living organism to survive better in this environment, exists. My evidence antibiotic resistance

2) I know life is diverse and forever changing with always the more superior lifeforms advancing forward as dominant. My evidence is fossils.

3) I know life changed many times according to the conditions of earth, my evidence is the ice shards extracted in the antarctic which keep a detailed atmospheric record, Just like how volcanic rocks keep a record of the earth's magnetic field.

4) I can prove the existance of forced evolution i.e Breeding and of course synthetic evolution i.e our technology

5) I can prove that water, organic chemistry and energy are required for life

6) I can prove that membranes and cells can come into existance and self replicate from amino acids. The experiement was recently done using amino acids and basic fatty acids an extention of miller's experiment, unfortunately I forgot the name of the experiment, I saw a documentry on BBC K.

The only thing I cant prove is that this "primodial soup" really existed. Though I can extrapolate my data collected thus far and safely say that it must have. Similarly like how we can safely say that a super massive singularity powers the rotation of the milkyway galaxy even though we cant see it. Also how we safely say that air exists.

Though as intellectuals or pseudointellectuals that pretend to be more intelligent than others because they have done some reading on the internet. We must remember the cold hard fact. WE CANNOT DISPROVE THE EXISTANCE OF GOD. Thus it would be an insult to science to say as scientists that god doesnt exist without a complete definate picture, if there is still doubt about a topic it may not be considered fact.

Though personally I dont believe myself in the power of god for many reasons which I will layout in the latter end of this post. There is some truth in what religion states. For example hinduism (the oldest religion on earth) states that in life there is rebirth and the soul recycles itself into new life. In terms of science this holds true. Everything you are made of only exists because something died. The elements in your body were formed in super massive stars that went supernova, therefore from that death, earth , the sun, plants, animals and essensially humanity was derived.

It also states that the gods arrived on their golden ships in the sky (not as simply as this though). So one must look at this objectively, is it possible that humanity was aided by aliens (no im not joking or making fun here, dead serious all avenues must be explored), that provided knowledge tools and uplifted animal homosaipians into what they are today? Before you laugh know that if you have a dog and teach him to sit, play dead ect in the wild this will not occur, your dog has recieved knowledge from your intellectual interference. This would also explain a lot of the miracles quoted in ancient religions that are now extinct.

The biggest problem with the concept is that religion may not be sectionalised for convience, it claims to be a way of truth, in terms of hinduism, the problem lies with the reincarnation principle. How can you have a equilibrium of souls? when the population is growing ? where do these new souls come from? Conversely monoesthetic religions like Islam and christianity that believe in eternity heaven and hell. The problem with these lies with the fact that eternity cannot exist, if its born/created it will die/break over time.

The next thing I have a problem with all religion, is that what makes this text of yours "holy" ? what differs it from any other old fable. I highly doubt that the sky parted and a master copy came down gently to ground in a bathe in a brilliant pure light. Then the fact remains is why are there so many different religions? if its one god then there should be one religion, if so what happens to the religion of those cultures that are now extinct? where are their gods gone too? the norse gods aztec gods trojan greek egyptian ect ect ect. Again this violates the fundamental law of monesthetic religion, thus the proper conclusion would be a polyesthetic religion would be correct to commodate this, which violates monoestheic religion a redundant nonsensical cycle.

Now the next thing, the lack of power of god. I dont know about you but I have not called in to work or school or anytime in my lifetime that I could not make it because "its raining fire". Now if you say you spoke to god and try to change the world, we admit you to psychiatry. Which comes to my most killing blow to religion as a whole. It is not god that created man, its man created god. Currently there is an experiment conducted known as the 'God helmet'. Its suppose to find the existance of god within our brains, as a certain portion known as the limbic system in the brain is resposible for thirst, emotions and a lot of other things, mirrored are these gyrii that allow the concept of god. When subjects are exposed to the stimulus of the god helmet, they are reports to have felt the presence of others which they often described as "angels". Medically, this system is in play to protect the human psych from extreme traumatic damage, and is in place to maintain sanity in events of extreme release of neutrotransmitters. Logically this makes sense, if you watch these miracle programs on TV you will see stories of people who claimed they saw god and a bright white light ect. Intellectuals tend to dismiss them as seekers for fame and the religious falsy approve of them as subjective evidence to comfort their religious egos. Look in the story of moses, he claimed to have spoken to god after extreme stress, with almost all prophets. There are many factors to this system so its difficult to say as the data is still in its infancy.

Finally by disproving religion as a whole I can start to disprove creationism and combine that to my proof of evolution to come up with a more factual scenario. However creationism claims a very disturbing fact. "God created everything and everyone". Lets explore what this means, if that holds true then that would mean god can create energy... however thats a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. One might want to argue at this point that god is above the laws of physics. To which I respond, why? why would god be above his own laws if he indeed created everything? I have proof that the law of thermodynamics has never been violated, even at a fundamental quantum level. Though I have never seen any proof of god's existance. As I stated before a text with fancy words does not pass as evidence. When last have you seen a micracle if biblical proportions like raining fire, plague selecting those of a certain belief. Doesnt happen sorry. Thus your religious text is no different from lord of the rings and harry potter. 4000 years from now some living thing might dig up a harry potter book, if it can understand the book, harry potter would be considered a god. He has magic fights evil ect ect ect. Creationism and religion hold ZERO ground in reality. While mathematics and physics hold some definite ground.

In other words:

- An evolutionist can prove the concept of evolution. Can show that change occurs. Can mathematically derive a time frame for a species to create a genetic change. Prove the existance of genetic dorminant vs recessive. Can prove that the idealogy of god is simply the stimulation of some neutrons in the brain. Can prove that cellular components like membranes can be formed with just basic elements and the proposed formula for life. The only thing that science cant prove at this moment is. The location of the primordial soup and prove/disprove god's existance in an obective mannor, i believe subjectively its already over for god.

-The creationist on the other hand, cannot PROVE their god exists. If you bring your bible as proof then im brining my harry potter book, its no different. They cannot PROVE the existance of devine power. Nor can they prove the existance of the soul. Religion has also failed to prove the events they preach. If moses caused god to rain fire on egypt, howcome I cant find any evidence? no maeteors ect NOT even a burn on the remains of the egyptian empire. Where is jesus' body? and why has god STOPPED creating life? where is noah's arc? where is noah? Furthermore creationists cant DENY evolution exists because by saying "evolution doesnt exist" you are essentially saying "Drug Resistant tuberculosis does not exist" ... sounds ridiculous huh. In conclusion creationist fail to prove their ideals and fail to disprove accepted science ideals.

 

[CoolBug]

Not just TB, all bacteria can and does evolve to be resistant to drugs, mrsa for example.
Insects as well become immune to the poison that has been intelligently designed to kill them.

When we Darwinist Mendalist Pasturist Democritusist Evolutionists say that there is mountains of evidence for The ToE, there really is.

Nice post riax but Jesus tells me Swa will just laugh off your logic and at the evidence you put forward, he will misquote you and twist your words, he does not care about truth and his only goal is to win his argument.

Let's see what happens?

 

[RiaX]

All bacteria ect ect , even the human body. Im a pharmacist I've done these things in the lab , the only reason I dont quote viruses is because they are considere non-living

He can twist my words as much as he wants, but if its nonsense then he only makes himself look stupid. Im not here to win anything, im just providing information. In reality we are all ignorant, if you claim you are no ignorant then it simply means you have not amassed enough knowledge thus far. The more you learn the more you realise how little we know

anyways lets see what happens

 

[Swa]

Prove what? It's a definition

Definitions are meaningless. Facts support their use and make them meaningful. You seem to be confused here.

Mechanism for defining complexity?

what are you smoking?

Mechanism for creating complexity, or in your case a lack of it.

If I don't know something, I'm not ashamed or embarrassed to admit it.

I don't know many things, what started the big bang for example.

Evolution however, I've done enough research to know it's true. Not just internet clicky clicky, I've been to all sorts of museums, the cradle of human kind, I've been to caves and seen sites where they're currently still excavating hominid fossils.

There have been more hominid fossils found in South Africa than the rest of the world combined so it's embarrassing and pathetic that you dismiss it.

Your loss though.

Yet you don't want to admit it when you don't know. You do not address the problems with evolution that have been pointed out to you and simply dismiss them as not being a problem for you because you believe that evolution can happen. It sounds more like a fundamentalist belief than something you actually researched.

What a cumbersome way to prove evolution exists. Just use bacterial resistance. You can prove evolution exists in 5 hours, and you can see it happening in real time with your own two eyes.

Bacterial resistance does not prove evolution. Evolution requires an ongoing change from one type of organism to another.

I can prove evolution and I can formulate a theory of evolution by piecing the information and facts that has been discovered over time. For example:

1) I know evolution, the change of a living organism to survive better in this environment, exists. My evidence antibiotic resistance

2) I know life is diverse and forever changing with always the more superior lifeforms advancing forward as dominant. My evidence is fossils.

3) I know life changed many times according to the conditions of earth, my evidence is the ice shards extracted in the antarctic which keep a detailed atmospheric record, Just like how volcanic rocks keep a record of the earth's magnetic field.

4) I can prove the existance of forced evolution i.e Breeding and of course synthetic evolution i.e our technology

5) I can prove that water, organic chemistry and energy are required for life

6) I can prove that membranes and cells can come into existance and self replicate from amino acids. The experiement was recently done using amino acids and basic fatty acids an extention of miller's experiment, unfortunately I forgot the name of the experiment, I saw a documentry on BBC K.

1) You describe adaptation, ironically a creationists concept known for millennia.

2,3) You know life is changing. That does not imply that any change is possible. Ironically for your case the fossil record actually shows life to be largely static and resistant to change.

4) Dogs are a good example of how over thousands of years of selective breeding to maximise change they still remain dogs. Synthetic evolution is not a proof of evolution. If you have to prove that evolution occurs through selecting what DNA changes to perform and induce them then you have only proven it can't happen by itself. You have proven creation.

5) Water, organic chemistry and energy are a requirement of creation as well. You seem to be grasping at straws here.

6) Miller's experiment was shown to be largely flawed by not mimicking the correct conditions present on earth. It also showed that the conditions have to be exactly controlled or it would destroy it. Miller's experiment only showed the components of life so artificially designing an experiment to make cellular structures only shows it doesn't happen by chance, because outside influences would destroy it before evolution can even start. When Dean Kenyon spent his career trying to prove Miller's experiment he came to the conclusion that it's not possible.

The only thing I cant prove is that this "primodial soup" really existed. Though I can extrapolate my data collected thus far and safely say that it must have. Similarly like how we can safely say that a super massive singularity powers the rotation of the milkyway galaxy even though we cant see it. Also how we safely say that air exists.

The only evidence for the primordial soup is - oh wait there isn't any. You believe that it was there just like you want to believe evolution is true. The problem (for you) is that without that you can't assume there must have been evolution from a primordial soup.

It also states that the gods arrived on their golden ships in the sky (not as simply as this though). So one must look at this objectively, is it possible that humanity was aided by aliens (no im not joking or making fun here, dead serious all avenues must be explored), that provided knowledge tools and uplifted animal homosaipians into what they are today? Before you laugh know that if you have a dog and teach him to sit, play dead ect in the wild this will not occur, your dog has recieved knowledge from your intellectual interference. This would also explain a lot of the miracles quoted in ancient religions that are now extinct.

I don't laugh at such notions. There is enough evidence in history to suggest this is the case if you want to see things in a material context. Though it should be kept in mind that ancient civilisations had a tendency to use physical descriptions for things they couldn't comprehend. Likewise there is enough evidence to consider God a real possibility. What people do not understand is that these are not questions of science.

The biggest problem with the concept is that religion may not be sectionalised for convience, it claims to be a way of truth, in terms of hinduism, the problem lies with the reincarnation principle. How can you have a equilibrium of souls? when the population is growing ? where do these new souls come from? Conversely monoesthetic religions like Islam and christianity that believe in eternity heaven and hell. The problem with these lies with the fact that eternity cannot exist, if its born/created it will die/break over time.

How can you claim that eternity cannot exist? The problem is in trying to misuse science of the physical world with a metaphysical concept. Science can't show where the universe comes from because it is limited to our reality conversely science can't show why there has to be existence in the first place or why our chronological understanding should apply. Philosophically we can make the argument that change can not exist because anything that changes requires an initial state and ultimate start so it must be an illusion. Everything therefore must be pure existence without state that would make eternity into the past and future irrelevant.

 

[Swa]

The next thing I have a problem with all religion, is that what makes this text of yours "holy" ? what differs it from any other old fable. I highly doubt that the sky parted and a master copy came down gently to ground in a bathe in a brilliant pure light. Then the fact remains is why are there so many different religions? if its one god then there should be one religion, if so what happens to the religion of those cultures that are now extinct? where are their gods gone too? the norse gods aztec gods trojan greek egyptian ect ect ect. Again this violates the fundamental law of monesthetic religion, thus the proper conclusion would be a polyesthetic religion would be correct to commodate this, which violates monoestheic religion a redundant nonsensical cycle.

Not really the place for this but if you are saying that human desire to follow their own desire is proof that all religion is false that is fallacious. In the pure sense all religion must be false because all groups of people define elements they can reconcile with so it's a compromise and differs from the original. When it comes to religious beliefs however some will be more correct than others. You can't claim your own belief as the correct one and all others false as a matter of fact.

Now the next thing, the lack of power of god. I dont know about you but I have not called in to work or school or anytime in my lifetime that I could not make it because "its raining fire". Now if you say you spoke to god and try to change the world, we admit you to psychiatry. Which comes to my most killing blow to religion as a whole. It is not god that created man, its man created god. Currently there is an experiment conducted known as the 'God helmet'. Its suppose to find the existance of god within our brains, as a certain portion known as the limbic system in the brain is resposible for thirst, emotions and a lot of other things, mirrored are these gyrii that allow the concept of god. When subjects are exposed to the stimulus of the god helmet, they are reports to have felt the presence of others which they often described as "angels". Medically, this system is in play to protect the human psych from extreme traumatic damage, and is in place to maintain sanity in events of extreme release of neutrotransmitters. Logically this makes sense, if you watch these miracle programs on TV you will see stories of people who claimed they saw god and a bright white light ect. Intellectuals tend to dismiss them as seekers for fame and the religious falsy approve of them as subjective evidence to comfort their religious egos. Look in the story of moses, he claimed to have spoken to god after extreme stress, with almost all prophets. There are many factors to this system so its difficult to say as the data is still in its infancy.

I don't know if you are implying that because God does not interfere on a continual basis He lacks power. That's fallacious reasoning. Also people speaking to God does not make them insane and it takes a lot more than hearing God talk back to get someone committed. You have to prove reasonably that they are a danger to themself or others. Psychiatric conditions are diagnosed more on behaviour and feeling than hearing voices. People that claim to hear voices often pass or even surpass tests for rationality. It's amazing how far people will go to try and disprove God.

Finally by disproving religion as a whole I can start to disprove creationism and combine that to my proof of evolution to come up with a more factual scenario. However creationism claims a very disturbing fact. "God created everything and everyone". Lets explore what this means, if that holds true then that would mean god can create energy... however thats a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. One might want to argue at this point that god is above the laws of physics. To which I respond, why? why would god be above his own laws if he indeed created everything? I have proof that the law of thermodynamics has never been violated, even at a fundamental quantum level. Though I have never seen any proof of god's existance. As I stated before a text with fancy words does not pass as evidence. When last have you seen a micracle if biblical proportions like raining fire, plague selecting those of a certain belief. Doesnt happen sorry. Thus your religious text is no different from lord of the rings and harry potter. 4000 years from now some living thing might dig up a harry potter book, if it can understand the book, harry potter would be considered a god. He has magic fights evil ect ect ect. Creationism and religion hold ZERO ground in reality. While mathematics and physics hold some definite ground.

You haven't disproved religion and the fact that you think you can shows your facts are not grounded in reality. Let's look at biblical creationism more closely. God not only can create everything but did including energy. The implication is not that God violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics (what a misapplied twisting of it ) but that God created matter, space and time, the laws of thermodynamics and all other laws and continues to sustain them through His will. The naturalistic view of reality is thus that creation can be understood in predictive ways because there are actual unchanging laws ordained by God. Your claim that you have "proof" that the laws have never been violated thus only proves this claim true and not that God didn't put these laws in place or can't suspend them or intervene.

Your claim that the bible is nothing more than a Harry Potter book is absurd and not grounded in reality. Firstly it is an actual eye witness account delivered through generations as one. Secondly what you view as its weakness is actually its strength. It's not merely one fictional book but many independent ones that corroborate each other.

In other words:

- An evolutionist can prove the concept of evolution. Can show that change occurs. Can mathematically derive a time frame for a species to create a genetic change. Prove the existance of genetic dorminant vs recessive. Can prove that the idealogy of god is simply the stimulation of some neutrons in the brain. Can prove that cellular components like membranes can be formed with just basic elements and the proposed formula for life. The only thing that science cant prove at this moment is. The location of the primordial soup and prove/disprove god's existance in an obective mannor, i believe subjectively its already over for god.

-The creationist on the other hand, cannot PROVE their god exists. If you bring your bible as proof then im brining my harry potter book, its no different. They cannot PROVE the existance of devine power. Nor can they prove the existance of the soul. Religion has also failed to prove the events they preach. If moses caused god to rain fire on egypt, howcome I cant find any evidence? no maeteors ect NOT even a burn on the remains of the egyptian empire. Where is jesus' body? and why has god STOPPED creating life? where is noah's arc? where is noah? Furthermore creationists cant DENY evolution exists because by saying "evolution doesnt exist" you are essentially saying "Drug Resistant tuberculosis does not exist" ... sounds ridiculous huh. In conclusion creationist fail to prove their ideals and fail to disprove accepted science ideals.

In other words evolutionists claim evolution is proven but when called upon to provide this proof all they can show is:

• Some small changes and assume larger changes are possible and uninhibited and in fact occurred.
• A time frame where even they see small changes aren't enough so resort to punctuated equilibrium, large changes directly. An equally unsupported claim.
• An unsupported hypothesis that life in a form capable of evolving merely formed by itself. Something we don't see happening ever and that was proven to not happen long ago and where all indications are that it's not possible for such complexity to arise through pure natural means.
• Lines of descent that based on fossil homology, DNA, ERVs and microRNAs contradict each other where this would be expected in creation.
• A fossil record that does not show the gradualistic progression from simple to advanced organisms (more reason to postulate the equally unsupported punctuated equilibrium) that was stated by Darwin as the most obvious and serious objection against evolution that can be raised and is in fact more in line with separate created forms.

In conclusion evolutionists prove that what they really have is based on ideology alone. If you wish to disprove that then satisfactory answer these points or else you don't even have an account of history and a largely unforgeable one that counts against you.

And where is Jesus' body? Are you being serious? :wtf:

 

[alloytoo]

Definitions are meaningless. Facts support their use and make them meaningful. You seem to be confused here.

Definitions are the foundation of common language and scientific enquiry.

Now that I have defined complexity, everyone on this thread knows exactly what I mean when I talk about it and we are better able to discuss it's relationship, if any, with entropy.

Don't whine because you've failed to come up with a definition which is consistent and useful.

Mechanism for creating complexity, or in your case a lack of it.

There are any number of natural processes which create complexity, some which require agency, some which don't.

 

[CoolBug]

Okay tbh, that is a silly question, where is Jesus' body.

Obviously all rational people know his physical body flew up to heaven.

Some small changes and assume larger changes are possible and uninhibited and in fact occurred.

Because vestigial hip bones in whales is a small change, biggest animal known to have existed on this planet, once a much smaller creature that walked on 4 legs.

Very small change.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality

 

[alloytoo]

Okay tbh, that is a silly question, where is Jesus' body.

Obviously all rational people know his physical body flew up to heaven.

Well that body had a few holes, so we can safely assume some bits were left behind.