Scientific Challenge To Darwinists

[A-wal]

Your knowledge of statistics is manifest in your claim that anything with any infinitesimal probability is "possible."

Mathematical lines do not exist.  They are infinitely small.  Ten to the 50th grains of sand would fill 15 spheres the size of our solar system out to Pluto.

Picking one specially marked grain of sand on your first and only hypothetical try is beyond the pale of impossible, no matter how pretentiously you wish to argue.

You're questioning his knowledge of statistics? Your ingrained religious batshittary is preventing your mind from functioning properly.

 

If the odds are ten to the 50th to one and you have only one try then it's very unlikely but if you have ten to the 50th attempts then it obviously isn't. With the number of plants in a galaxy (trillions) and the number of observable galaxies (hundreds of billions) likely to be only a minute % of the total number it's really not at all surprising that life got started.

 

With extremophiles and the possibility of panspermia microbial life might already be basically everywhere and just needing the right conditions to flourish.

[sluggo]

A few quotes (from a page full) relative to Evolution. Note the last two.

 

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of "seeing" evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of "gaps" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. The gaps must therefore be a contingent feature of the record."

(Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, vol 28, 1974, p. 467)

 

"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." (Ridley, Mark, "Who doubts evolution?, "New Scientist", vol 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831)

 

"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes tow features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. stasis Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear, ...2. sudden appearance In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of it ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed."

(Gould, Stephen J. "The Panda's Thumb", 1980, p 181-182)

 

"The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory."(Darwin, Charles, "Origin of Species", 6th edition, 1902 p. 341)

 

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." (Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1887, vol. 2,p. 229)

" in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between spec The gaps must

[TooMuchFun]

I have scores more quotes like these by scientists:

 

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.” – (Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)

 

“When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it.”  (John Polkinghorne, Cambridge University physicist, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

 

“Many have a feeling that somehow intelligence must have been involved in the laws of the universe.”  (Charles Townes, 1964 Nobel Prize winner in Physics, “Science Finds God,” Newsweek, 20 July, 1998)

 

“It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find

an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which — a functional protein or gene — is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artefacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of 20th century technology…” (Michael Denton, Evolution — A Theory in Crisis, p. 328).

 

“It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which — a functional protein or gene — is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced artefacts appear clumsy. We feel humbled, as neolithic man would in the presence of 20th century technology…” (Michael Denton, Evolution — A Theory in Crisis, p. 328).

 

“250,000 species of plants and animals recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin.”  (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, “Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology”)

 

“The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do.”  (Dr. Robert A. Millikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)

 

“The miracles required to make evolution feasible are far greater in number and far harder to believe than the miracle of creation.”  (Dr. Richard Bliss, former professor of biology and science education as Christian Heritage College, “It Takes A Miracle For Evolution.”)

Edited December 5, 2018 by TooMuchFun

[GAHD]

I love it when nutters take words out of context and claim they prove their point. I don't really, I feel like I should try 3 times to help them be less less-than sapiens. If those 3 tries fail it's usually time for them to thank the forefathers we live in a civilized society...

[sluggo]

It is puzzling that Charles Darwin, who claimed to believe in a God, would find it necessary to 'explain' creation to the world.

As a self appointed spokesman who felt he was doing God a favor, he failed, since he reduced the uniqueness of man to lower orders of living creatures. If he was as knowledgable as he claimed, he would have known that man is the only species to be responsible for another life, and have free will to choose.

Since he spent most of his life studying various life forms, habitats, variations, breeding, taxidermy, etc., he would have had more knowledge than the average person. As history shows, published works are accepted in general as 'expert' opinion by the masses (who know much less).

 

What he observed was species adapting to their environment. This is nothing new, but his interpretation was. His appeal to long periods of time for subtle changes (mutations, natural selection, etc) had to be modified, after more evidence of relatively sudden appearance and extinction of species.

Scientifically, time doesn't cause anything. (one of those ridiculous misconceptions)

Any life form would not survive, if it had to wait to develop mature characteristics. Pick any bird of prey. If its eyes aren't fully developed as a mature bird, it will not survive.

In relation to his belief, he is saying God is not capable of creating a species complete and fit to survive in its environment without modification. He assigns human inadequacies to a supreme being. (ego, tunnel vision, or ignorance?)

As for mutations, most random types are destructive. thus warnings against excessive exposure to radiation and chemicals (thalidomide). You will never convince cancer patients that mutations are beneficial to their health. Selective manipulation of defective genes may be useful in treating diseases, but is still experimental.

'Natural selection' is just a foggy term for lack of understanding. Who are 'mother nature' and 'father time'? Personification of inanimate things, is that enlightenment?

 

If a creature left the water to live on land out of necessity, why are there still creatures in the water, still surviving? A bird develops feathers to fly and survive. A horse doesn't have feathers, yet survives. All species survive without the need for components declared necessary for the others to 'adapt' or 'survive'. They all survive exactly as designed, in a large spectrum of sizes and habitats. Considering all plant and animal life, variety is the norm.

What Darwin and his followers fail to see is what the programmer and designer already know. You don't reinvent the wheel every time you need one. Genetic code is a template for life forms. The variety comes from using different combinations of features, i.e. it's built into the program. Programmers in a similar fashion design reusable modules for specific purposes, and use them when needed.

Evolution is comparing anatomies for common features and conjecturing a fictional causal effect or link from one to another. In reality it's the common structural design, adjusted for specific purposes. The auto and aircraft industry use the same method. All aircraft use the same design principles of flight, but with the container design dependent on its purpose. Trucks are not made from car parts, but are designed as heavy duty components for a more dynamic environment. They resemble car parts only because of design principles.

 

Interesting to note that after losing his daughter and his lack of understanding why evil exists, he lost faith in his God.

 

G. Cantor, another of the same mindset, a self appointed spokesman for God, believed he could explain the concept of infinity to the masses.

If either one provided a correct explanation resulting from devine revelation, the truth would have proclaimed itself.

 

I’’m not implying any negative perceptions to the concept of a Supreme Being. It’s the case of people taking themselves too seriously and wanting to be recognized.

 

If you go exploring the universe, remember to take a lunch. Just because you see a garden with lettuce and tomatoes, and farther down the road, you pass a pig farm, doesn't mean you'll find a BLT at the next house.

Edited December 6, 2018 by sluggo

[tetrahedron]

<<If a creature left the water to live on land out of necessity, why are there still creatures in the water, still surviving?>>  I'd say opportunity trumps necessity here. Animals gotta eat. Those who aren't so picky about what they'll swallow will have an easier time of it in terms of volume consumed, all other things being equal. Ancient lobe-finned fishes lived in swamps where muscular leg-iike fins made locomotion easier through dense vegetation in the water. They could ambush prey with a strong stroke of their tails. Now if you can lunge onto the shore for a moment to grab some tasty bug and then hightail it back into the water you have an advantage. And there are more bugs walking around on the land, if you can stay out of the water longer. As for necessity, not all water pools dry up the same, and they all don't present the same amounts of edible prey. Its a big world. Where creatures are sitting fat and happy, nothing will change. Where the pickings are leaner, you might try anything new. Even in language evolution, changes are gradualistic, and don't suddenly appear across the entire spectrum of speakers. One can actually chart the spread of new features. And even then the change may never be universal, so that some remnant pocket of speakers continues to use the archaic variety. Even in English.

 

Jess Tauber

[A-wal]

As for mutations, most random types are destructive. thus warnings against excessive exposure to radiation and chemicals (thalidomide). You will never convince cancer patients that mutations are beneficial to their health. Selective manipulation of defective genes may be useful in treating diseases, but is still experimental.

'Natural selection' is just a foggy term for lack of understanding. Who are 'mother nature' and 'father time'? Personification of inanimate things, is that enlightenment?

Of course random mutations are normally detrimental rather than beneficial, but those carrying those kinds of mutations tend to reproduce whereas those carrying beneficial mutations stand a better chance of reproducing than those without that mutation, meaning improvements tend to be kept rather than discarded like most mutations.

 

This is natural selection. With enough time there's no limit to what this incredibly simple process is capable of changing, other than it has to be a constant improvement in terms of being better suited to its environment.

 

Any life form would not survive, if it had to wait to develop mature characteristics. Pick any bird of prey. If its eyes aren't fully developed as a mature bird, it will not survive.

Only because it's competing with birds with fully developed eyes. This is an example of a disadvantage being taken out of the gene pool in favour of better genes.

 

In relation to his belief, he is saying God is not capable of creating a species complete and fit to survive in its environment without modification. He assigns human inadequacies to a supreme being. (ego, tunnel vision, or ignorance?)

Completely dwarfed by the ego/tunnel vision/ignorance of assuming that his god exists in the first place despite zero confirmed sightings. Might as well be disputing the size of the Easter Bunny's ears.

[TooMuchFun]

Not ONE atheist has so much as attempted to rise to the challenge to explain the original synthesis of even one, much less 100,000 polypeptides by naturalistic means.  Not  ONE.  They call those of us they hate "nutters" and other petty pejoratives.  How superficial and petty of them.

 

Try explaining to me the selection of each individual chiral amino acid, 574 of them in all, in human hemoglobin.
There are 20 amino acids.  1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20... 574 times.  

Richard Dawkins has defined "impossible" as 1 chance in 10 to the 40th power or less.  The space of human hemoglobin dwarfs Dawkins definition, and that's just one of the more than 100,000 proteins in our bodies.

 

The arrogance of atheists is dishonest and misplaced.

[GAHD]

Not ONE atheist has so much as attempted to rise to the challenge to explain the original synthesis of even one, much less 100,000 polypeptides by naturalistic means.  Not  ONE.  They call those of us they hate "nutters" and other petty pejoratives.  How superficial and petty of them.

 

Try explaining to me the selection of each individual chiral amino acid, 574 of them in all, in human hemoglobin.

There are 20 amino acids.  1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20... 574 times.  

Richard Dawkins has defined "impossible" as 1 chance in 10 to the 40th power or less.  The space of human hemoglobin dwarfs Dawkins definition, and that's just one of the more than 100,000 proteins in our bodies.

 

The arrogance of atheists is dishonest and misplaced.

Not one True believer of countless religions has managed to call down an allmighty God to smite the heretics.

 

The arrogance of adults with imaginary friends is dishonest and misplaced.

[TooMuchFun]

Not one True (sic)  believer of countless religions has managed to call down an allmighty  (sic) God to smite the heretics.

 

The arrogance of adults with imaginary friends is dishonest and misplaced.

 

• Like This

Sometimes a Hypography Forum Administrator

 

"With a big enough engine, even a brick will fly." -Law of Aerospace

 

There are pathetically few people who post on this boring website that even the "Forum Administrator" has to chime in with his trite talking points.

 

1. You can't spell.

2.  You can't respond to the scientific challenge presented.

3.  All you can do is trot out your tired talking points handed to you by Richard Dawkins and other "brights" (sic), a one-word oxymoron.

4. No, a brick can't fly under any circumstances, and your inane quote is NOT a law of aerospace.

5.  Trying to have a rational discussion with irrational atheists such as you is impossible and unproductive.

6. I see no point in returning to this sad home of yours.

 

http://ProofThereIsNoGod.blogspot.com

 

 

• Like This

Sometimes a Hypography Forum Administrator

 

"With a big enough engine, even a brick will fly." -Law of Aerospace

[GAHD]

 

There are pathetically few people who post on this boring website that even the "Forum Administrator" has to chime in with his trite talking points.

 

1. You can't spell.

2.  You can't respond to the scientific challenge presented.

3.  All you can do is trot out your tired talking points handed to you by Richard Dawkins and other "brights" (sic), a one-word oxymoron.

4. No, a brick can't fly under any circumstances, and your inane quote is NOT a law of aerospace.

5.  Trying to have a rational discussion with irrational atheists such as you is impossible and unproductive.

6. I see no point in returning to this sad home of yours.

 

http://ProofThereIsNoGod.blogspot.com

 

 

• Like This

Sometimes a Hypography Forum Administrator

 

"With a big enough engine, even a brick will fly." -Law of Aerospace

 

1. certainly can. but ok. as usual the mind of a religious zealot must cling to anything they can, even if it's made up. one might say especially if it's made up. i've confirmed that petty Capitalization bothers you i'm going to go out of my way to do it. also colour. enjoy.

2. there was none. you don't understand science. that's why you're a zealot. your mind is missing certain critical thinking tools and it shows.

3. as above. though replaced with king james. or whichever sumarian penned the isis religion, the one all abrahamic religions rip off nearly word for word.

4. you don't understand engineering. i do. this is another reason to view you as beneath me. you poor ignorant individual. what a waste of a mind.

5. pot, meet kettle.

6. no doubt you will go refuel in some religious echo chamber. do try to learn a bit. even if you are a fool duped by manipulators above your class. if there's a god, and they made your mind, it is a terrible sin to waste the effort they put into making it. i fear that you have show just how much you have wasted it.

 

toodles

[Maine farmer]

From a utilitarian perspective, it doesn't matter if we exist because of evolution or creation, because evolution is a useful tool.  https://www.technologyreview.com/s/53216/software-designs-products-by-simulating-evolution/

[sluggo]

pascal #66;

 

Animal behavior is mostly programmed for each species, with some ability to adapt to its environment. This includes their diet to varying degrees. Their activities repeat seasonally. Typically after birth, they receive sufficient parenting skills to survive on their own. The greatest risk to survival is a drastic change in environment, like fires, floods, disease, ... human intervention. Post 65 was an overview intended to show, all species are 'fit' to 'survive' where they are, in their original form. The tiny paramecium is still in the oceans after 1000's of years as a food source. Did you miss Darwin's 1902 quote where even he questioned the lack of gradations necessary for his theory. The supposed transitions of species don't exist. The why is simple, there is no need for them.

 

For those who defend science over religion, science is a religion. It too requires a faith in its theoretical foundations of invisible forces and imaginary objects.

Religion states, the stone falls to the ground.

Science states, the force of gravity accelerates the stone to the ground.

Both statements are true, the difference, one has more detail than the other.

[sluggo]

A-wal #67;

 

Only because it's competing with birds with fully developed eyes. This is an example of a disadvantage being taken out of the gene pool in favour of better genes.

---
"If its eyes aren't fully developed as a mature bird, it will not survive."
Meaning it is born with the vision necessary to survive.
 

You're posting 'what if' scenarios.
If you lost an arm in an accident, you wouldn't be able to play basketball as well as someone with both arms.

Impaired vision doesn't have to be a genetic defect, it may be an injury.

 

The predator-prey aspect of the animal habitat would appear to be a form of population control, which may occasionally include the elimination of defective animals. We also have scavengers like vultures who clean up the environment. If you consider the big picture, the ecosystem is well organized.

 

Society attempts to understand the world in terms of what they think they already know.

(Why does science keep saying, "it's more complicated than we originally thought.")

Imperfect humans developing a robot, would require refining and tweaking, and possible recalls, until it performs as specified. That same society says "if we can't do it perfectly, then no one else can."

Now when a new scientific fact is discovered, I don't see it as an increase in human knowledge, but a demonstration emphasizing the degree of ignorance.

This would be supported by evolution, since the inanimate elements produce life forms. I.e., human intelligence is less than that of a stone. All those awards should be taken back!

My question of the day:
What is the origin of genetic code?

[GAHD]

You'd kinda think snake thermal-pits are a good way to show in-between steps of vision evolution, but oh-well. Creationists always take it to Zeno's Paradox levels of "smaller intermediate steps needed." At least I stay consistent with the "bring your God down here to have a chat with me, and fix some stuff."

Edited December 10, 2018 by GAHD

[Dubbelosix]

I'd like to make it clear, I am not in the traditional ''creationist arguments'' as my view is rooted from science. In physics there is a well-known problem of fine tuning parameters, there are well over sixty of them in literature and these parameters are so exact that if they differed from their value only slightly, then the universe as we know it could not exist. Now while you might think that a superintelligence could not be behind this, it has in fact been recognized by Susskind as a real phenomenon; and as wild as it may sound, a god, or superintellect could be behind it. The fact it, our entire basis of existence relies on a very exact science based within the constants found in fundamental physics - how this could have happened to such a fine degree, is uncertain. I think this is the strongest evidence to support that our universe at least isn't as accidental as we might think. 

 

 

I also believe that a cosmic consciousness should exist. Apparently ''dead matter'' comes together to form mobile living matter and at our level of consciousness, it involves a great degree of flexibility giving rise to all sorts of experiences, deep emotions and complex thought processes. The ability for matter to come together and do this, suggests that perhaps consciousness is not as localized as we think and could very well be a property of the entire cosmos that wishes to express itself in any form of life. 

[GAHD]

I'd like to make it clear, I am not in the traditional ''creationist arguments'' as my view is rooted from science. In physics there is a well-known problem of fine tuning parameters, there are well over sixty of them in literature and these parameters are so exact that if they differed from their value only slightly, then the universe as we know it could not exist. Now while you might think that a superintelligence could not be behind this, it has in fact been recognized by Susskind as a real phenomenon; and as wild as it may sound, a god, or superintellect could be behind it. The fact it, our entire basis of existence relies on a very exact science based within the constants found in fundamental physics - how this could have happened to such a fine degree, is uncertain. I think this is the strongest evidence to support that our universe at least isn't as accidental as we might think. 

 

 

I also believe that a cosmic consciousness should exist. Apparently ''dead matter'' comes together to form mobile living matter and at our level of consciousness, it involves a great degree of flexibility giving rise to all sorts of experiences, deep emotions and complex thought processes. The ability for matter to come together and do this, suggests that perhaps consciousness is not as localized as we think and could very well be a property of the entire cosmos that wishes to express itself in any form of life. 

Or, it just IS...because the only other option is that it isn't. Since it is instead of isn't, obviously the possibility of it happening is large enough that it did...

 

There's also an interesting thing about that "fine tuning" argument: a LOT of basic values are so inter-dependent that if one changed most of the others would probably just compensate. EG if C was a smaller value, Everything would be the same, but smaller. However, since EVERYTHING would be smaller you wouldn't notice, because ratios. Sort of the same thing with a most of the fundamental forces AFAIK.

 

Now there are some forces that do fall outside this, but even those have a kinda large margin. EG dark energy, which depending on it's actual power could lead to either closed, open, or flat universe. It's only recently that we've measured reliably enough to make a call on the universe being "flat."