Science Disproves Evolution

Posted in the Atheism Forum

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of685
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Dec 08

Athens, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Aug 14, 2012
 

Judged:

5

5

3

The Law of Biogenesis

Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes (a).

Evolutionary scientists reluctantly accept the law of biogenesis (b). However, some say that future studies may show how life could come from lifeless matter, despite the virtually impossible odds. Others say that their theory of evolution doesn’t begin until the first life somehow arose. Still others say the first life was created, then evolution occurred. All evolutionists recognize that, based on scientific observations, life comes only from life.

[continue]

Since: Dec 08

Athens, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Aug 14, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

The Law of Biogenesis
[continued]

a. And yet, leading evolutionists are forced to accept some form of spontaneous generation. For example, a former Harvard University professor and Nobel Prize winner in physiology and medicine acknowledged the dilemma.

“The reasonable view [during the two centuries before Louis Pasteur] was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position.” George Wald,“The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, Vol. 190, August 1954, p. 46.

Wald rejects creation, despite the impossible odds of spontaneous generation.

“One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.” Ibid.

Later, Wald appeals to huge amounts of time to accomplish what seemed to be the impossibility of spontaneous generation.

“Time is in fact the hero of the plot.... Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.” Ibid., p. 48.

What Wald did not appreciate in 1954 (before, as just one example, the genetic code was discovered) was how the complexity in life is vastly greater than anyone at that time could have imagined.[See pages 14–20] So, today, the impossibility of spontaneous generation is even more firmly established, regardless of the time available. But unfortunately, several generations of professors and textbooks with Wald’s perspective have so impacted our universities that it is difficult for evolutionists to change direction.

Evolutionists also do not recognize:

that with increasing time (their “miracle maker”) comes increasing degradation of the fragile environment on which life depends, and

that creationists have much better explanations (such as the flood) for the scientific observations that evolutionists think show vast time periods.

b.“The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is as yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of ‘spontaneous generation.’ It was supposed that lowly forms of life developed spontaneously from, for example, putrefying meat. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine [the law of biogenesis] that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion. But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present mental climate, undesirable philosophic implications, and it is opposed to the scientific desire for continuity. It introduces an unaccountable break in the chain of causation, and therefore cannot be admitted as part of science unless it is quite impossible to reject it. For that reason most scientific men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not yet understood, from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry.” J. W. N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (New York: The Viking Press, Inc., 1933), p. 94.

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Aug 14, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Pahu wrote:
The Law ...
Still spamming the Atheism forum I see.

You couldn't be any more rude if you tried.

Please STOP creating threads in this forum, you are NOT the forum editor. In other words, take your stupid else where.

If you really want to discuss biological evolution, there is a whole forum in Topix dedicated to that, it's called the Evolution Debate forum.

This is the Atheism forum.

And if you don't know the difference between atheism and evolution, you're probably too young to be typing in Topix without adult supervision.

Since: Dec 08

Athens, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Aug 20, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Acquired Characteristics

Acquired characteristics—characteristic s gained after birth—cannot be inherited (a). For example, large muscles acquired by a man in a weight-lifting program cannot be inherited by his child. Nor did giraffes get long necks because their ancestors stretched to reach high leaves. While almost all evolutionists agree that acquired characteristics cannot be inherited, many unconsciously slip into this false belief. On occasion, Darwin did (b).

However, stressful environments for some animals and plants cause their offspring to express various defenses. New genetic traits are not created; instead, the environment can switch on genetic machinery already present. The marvel is that optimal (c) genetic machinery already exists to handle some contingencies, not that time, the environment, or “a need” can produce the machinery (d).

Also, rates of variation within a species (microevolution, not macroevolution) increase enormously when organisms are under stress, such as starvation (e). Stressful situations would have been widespread in the centuries after a global flood.

a. The false belief that acquired characteristics can be inherited, called Lamarckism, would mean that the environment can directly and beneficially change egg and sperm cells. Only a few biologists try to justify Lamarckism. The minor acquired characteristics they cite have no real significance for any present theory of organic evolution. For example, see “Lamarck, Dr. Steel and Plagiarism,” Nature, Vol. 337, 12 January 1989, pp. 101–102.

b.“This hypothesis [which Darwin called pangenesis] maintained the idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics.” A. M. Winchester, Genetics, 5th edition (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1977), p. 24.

c. In writing about this amazing capability, Queitsch admits:

“... it is a perplexing evolutionary question how a population might move to a different local optimum without an intervening period of reduced fitness (adaptive valley).” Christine Queitsch et al.,“Hsp90 as a Capacitor of Phenotypic Variation,” Nature, Vol. 417, 6 June 2002, p. 623.

d.“... genes that were switched on in the parent to generate the defensive response are also switched on in the offspring.” Erkki Haukioja,“Bite the Mother, Fight the Daughter,” Nature, Vol. 401, 2 September 1999, p. 23.

“... non-lethal exposure of an animal to carnivores, and a plant to a herbivore, not only induces a defence, but causes the attacked organisms to produce offspring that are better defended than offspring from unthreatened parents.” Anurag A. Agrawal et al.,“Transgenerational Induction of Defences in Animals and Plants,” Nature, Vol. 401, 2 September 1999, p. 60.

“... hidden genetic diversity exists within species and can erupt when [environmental] conditions change.” John Travis,“Evolutionary Shocker?: Stressful Conditions May Trigger Plants and Animals to Unleash New Forms Quickly,” Science News, Vol. 161, 22 June 2002, p. 394.

“Environmental stress can reveal genetic variants, presumably because it compromises buffering systems. If selected for, these uncovered phenotypes can lead to heritable changes in plants and animals (assimilation).” Queitsch et al., p. 618.

e. Marina Chicurel,“Can Organisms Speed Their Own Evolution?” Science, Vol. 292, 8 June 2001, pp. 1824–1827.

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Aug 20, 2012
 
Since you are apparently no capable of finding the appropriate Topix forum on your own, let me help you. Here's the link for the Evolution Debate forum.

" http://www.topix.com/news/evolution" ;

Please take your crap over there where it belongs and stop spamming the Atheism forum.

Since: Dec 08

Athens, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Aug 22, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Mendel’s Laws

Mendel’s laws of genetics and their modern-day refinements explain almost all physical variations occurring within species. Mendel discovered that genes (units of heredity) are merely reshuffled from one generation to another. Different combinations are formed, not different genes. The different combinations produce many variations within each kind of life, as in the dog family.[See Figure 3 on page 5.] A logical consequence of Mendel’s laws is that there are limits to such variation (a). Breeding experiments (b) and common observations (c) also confirm these boundaries.

a. Monroe W. Strickberger, Genetics, 2nd edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1976), p. 812.

Alfred Russel Wallace, who independently proposed the theory of organic evolution slightly before Charles Darwin, was opposed to Mendel’s laws of genetics. Wallace knew Mendel’s experiments showed that the general characteristics of an organism remained within distinct boundaries. In a letter to Dr. Archdall Reid on 28 December 1909, Wallace wrote:

“But on the general relation of Mendelism to Evolution I have come to a very definite conclusion. This is, that it has no relation whatever to the evolution of species or higher groups, but is really antagonistic to such evolution! The essential basis of evolution, involving as it does the most minute and all-pervading adaptation to the whole environment, is extreme and ever-present plasticity, as a condition of survival and adaptation. But the essence of Mendelian characters is their rigidity. They are transmitted without variation, and therefore, except by the rarest of accidents, can never become adapted to ever varying conditions.” James Marchant, Letters and Reminiscences (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1916), p. 340.

b.“Every series of breeding experiments that has ever taken place has established a finite limit to breeding possibilities.” Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (New Haven, Connecticut: Ticknor and Fields, 1982), p. 55.

“All competent biologists acknowledge the limited nature of the variation breeders can produce, although they do not like to discuss it much when grinding the evolutionary ax.” William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1984), pp. 184–185.

“A rule that all breeders recognize, is that there are fixed limits to the amount of change that can be produced.” Lane P. Lester and Raymond G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), p. 96.

Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason (Ipswich, Massachusetts: Gambit, 1971), p. 36.

William J. Tinkle, Heredity (Houston: St. Thomas Press, 1967), pp. 55–56.

c.“...the distinctions of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1927), p. 322.

“Indeed, the isolation and distinctness of different types of organisms and the existence of clear discontinuities in nature have been self-evident for centuries, even to non-biologists.” Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985), p. 105.

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Aug 22, 2012
 

Judged:

2

Pahu wrote:
Mendel’s Laws
Mendel’s laws...
You really are going out of your way to show everybody how utterly pigheaded and hateful Christians can be.

You are spamming the wrong forum.

Here's the link for the Evolution Debate forum.

" http://www.topix.com/news/evolution" ;

Every time you post this crap in the Atheism forum, you are telling everybody that you know your data is crap and you are afraid of actual reasoned discussion with people who understand evolution.

Are you also too stupid to understand this?

Since: Dec 08

Athens, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Aug 27, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Bounded Variations

Not only do Mendel’s laws give a theoretical explanation for why variations are limited, broad experimental verification also exists (a). For example, if evolution happened, organisms (such as bacteria) that quickly produce the most offspring should have the most variations and mutations. Natural selection would then select the more favorable changes, allowing organisms with those traits to survive, reproduce, and pass on their beneficial genes. Therefore, organisms that have allegedly evolved the most should have short reproduction cycles and many offspring. We see the opposite. In general, more complex organisms, such as humans, have fewer offspring and longer reproduction cycles (b). Again, variations within existing organisms appear to be bounded.

Organisms that occupy the most diverse environments in the greatest numbers for the longest times should also, according to macroevolution, have the greatest potential for evolving new features and species. Microbes falsify this prediction as well. Their numbers per species are astronomical, and they are dispersed throughout almost all the world’s environments. Nevertheless, the number of microbial species is relatively few (c). New features apparently don’t evolve.

a.“... the discovery of the Danish scientist W. L. Johannsen that the more or less constant somatic variations upon which Darwin and Wallace had placed their emphasis in species change cannot be selectively pushed beyond a certain point, that such variability does not contain the secret of ‘indefinite departure.’” Loren Eiseley, Darwin’s Century (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1958), p. 227.

b.“The awesome morphological complexity of organisms such as vertebrates that have far fewer individuals on which selection can act therefore remains somewhat puzzling (for me at least), despite the geological time scales available...” Peter R. Sheldon,“Complexity Still Running,” Nature, Vol. 350, 14 March 1991, p. 104.

c. Bland J. Finlay,“Global Dispersal of Free-Living Microbial Eukaryote Species,” Science, Vol. 296, 10 May 2002, pp. 1061–1063.

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Aug 28, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hedonist wrote:
Since you are apparently no capable of finding the appropriate Topix forum on your own, let me help you. Here's the link for the Evolution Debate forum.
" http://www.topix.com/news/evolution" ;
Please take your crap over there where it belongs and stop spamming the Atheism forum.
Now now hedonist, you're beginning to sound like me...

Since: Dec 10

Fogelsville, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Aug 28, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Pahu wrote:
The Law of Biogenesis
Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes (a).
Evolutionary scientists reluctantly accept the law of biogenesis (b). However, some say that future studies may show how life could come from lifeless matter, despite the virtually impossible odds. Others say that their theory of evolution doesn’t begin until the first life somehow arose. Still others say the first life was created, then evolution occurred. All evolutionists recognize that, based on scientific observations, life comes only from life.
[continue]
Obviously you do not even begin to understand evolution. Thanks for demonstrating that.

Go spam somewhere else.

Since: Dec 10

Fogelsville, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Aug 28, 2012
 
Pahu wrote:
The Law of Biogenesis
[continued]
p. 94.
[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]
By the way, when you credit the nut that you get this crap from, you should quote the entire title..... In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood by Walt Brown.

See, that way we can all have a good laugh

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Aug 28, 2012
 

Judged:

2

Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Still spamming the Atheism forum I see.
You couldn't be any more rude if you tried.
Please STOP creating threads in this forum, you are NOT the forum editor. In other words, take your stupid else where.
If you really want to discuss biological evolution, there is a whole forum in Topix dedicated to that, it's called the Evolution Debate forum.
This is the Atheism forum.
And if you don't know the difference between atheism and evolution, you're probably too young to be typing in Topix without adult supervision.
Nah, you can keep him here. It looks like the Evolution Forum was too high paced and too rigorous for him.

Actually if he wants to find someone to agree with him, and where he would not be irritating anyone he could always take this nonsense to a Christian Forum. Topix must be loaded with them.

Since: Dec 08

Athens, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Sep 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Natural Selection 1

Like so many terms in science, the popular meaning of “natural selection” differs from what the words actually mean.“Selecting” implies something that nature cannot do: thought, decision making, and choice. Instead, the complex genetics of each species allows variations within a species. In changing environments, those variations give some members of a species a slightly better chance to reproduce than other members, so their offspring have a better chance of surviving. The marvel is not about some capability that nature does not have, but about the designer who designed for adaptability and survivability in changing environments. With that understanding, the unfortunate term “natural selection” will be used.

An offspring of a plant or animal has characteristics that vary, often in subtle ways, from those of its “parents.” Because of the environment, genetics, and chance circumstances, some of these offspring will reproduce more than others. So, a species with certain characteristics will tend, on average, to have more “children.” Only in this sense, does nature “select” genetic characteristics suited to an environment—and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism’s gene pool is constantly decreasing.(a).

a. In 1835 and again in 1837, Edward Blyth, a creationist, published an explanation of natural selection. Later, Charles Darwin adopted it as the foundation for his theory, evolution by natural selection. Darwin failed to credit Blyth for his important insight.[See evolutionist Loren C. Eiseley, Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1979), pp. 45–80.]

Darwin also largely ignored Alfred Russel Wallace, who had independently proposed the theory that is usually credited solely to Darwin. In 1855, Wallace published the theory of evolution in a brief note in the Annals and Magazine of Natural History, a note that Darwin read. Again, on 9 March 1858, Wallace explained the theory in a letter to Darwin, 20 months before Darwin finally published his more detailed theory of evolution.

Edward Blyth also showed why natural selection would limit an organism’s characteristics to only slight deviations from those of all its ancestors. Twenty-four years later, Darwin tried to refute Blyth’s explanation in a chapter in The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (24 November 1859).

Darwin felt that, with enough time, gradual changes could accumulate. Charles Lyell’s writings (1830) had persuaded Darwin that the earth was at least hundreds of thousands of years old. James Hutton’s writings (1788) had convinced Lyell that the earth was extremely old. Hutton felt that certain geological formations supported an old earth. Those geological formations are explained, not by time, but by a global flood.[See pages 108–339]

“Darwin was confronted by a genuinely unusual problem. The mechanism, natural selection, by which he hoped to prove the reality of evolution, had been written about most intelligently by a nonevolutionist [Edward Blyth]. Geology, the time world which it was necessary to attach to natural selection in order to produce [hopefully] the mechanism of organic change, had been beautifully written upon by a man [Charles Lyell] who had publicly repudiated the evolutionary position.” Eiseley, p. 76.

Charles Darwin also plagiarized in other instances.[See Jerry Bergman,“Did Darwin Plagiarize His Evolution Theory?” Technical Journal, Vol. 16, No. 3, 2002, pp. 58–63.]

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Sep 10, 2012
 
Pahu wrote:
Natural Selection 1
Like so many terms in science, the popular meaning of “natural selection” differs from what the words actually mean.“Selecting” implies something that nature cannot do: thought, decision making, and choice. Instead, the complex genetics of each species allows variations within a species. In changing environments, those variations give some members of a species a slightly better chance to reproduce than other members, so their offspring have a better chance of surviving. The marvel is not about some capability that nature does not have, but about the designer who designed for adaptability and survivability in changing environments. With that understanding, the unfortunate term “natural selection” will be used.
An offspring of a plant or animal has characteristics that vary, often in subtle ways, from those of its “parents.” Because of the environment, genetics, and chance circumstances, some of these offspring will reproduce more than others. So, a species with certain characteristics will tend, on average, to have more “children.” Only in this sense, does nature “select” genetic characteristics suited to an environment—and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism’s gene pool is constantly decreasing.(a).
a. In 1835 and again in 1837, Edward Blyth, a creationist, published an explanation of natural selection. Later, Charles Darwin adopted it as the foundation for his theory, evolution by natural selection. Darwin failed to credit Blyth for his important insight.[See evolutionist Loren C. Eiseley, Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1979), pp. 45–80.]
Darwin also largely ignored Alfred Russel Wallace, who had independently proposed the theory that is usually credited solely to Darwin. In 1855, Wallace published the theory of evolution in a brief note in the Annals and Magazine of Natural History, a note that Darwin read. Again, on 9 March 1858, Wallace explained the theory in a letter to Darwin, 20 months before Darwin finally published his more detailed theory of evolution.
Edward Blyth also showed why natural selection would limit an organism’s characteristics to only slight deviations from those of all its ancestors. Twenty-four years later, Darwin tried to refute Blyth’s explanation in a chapter in The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (24 November 1859).
Darwin felt that, with enough time, gradual changes could accumulate. Charles Lyell’s writings (1830) had persuaded Darwin that the earth was at least hundreds of thousands of years old. James Hutton’s writings (1788) had convinced Lyell that the earth was extremely old. Hutton felt that certain geological formations supported an old earth. Those geological formations are explained, not by time, but by a global flood.[See pages 108–339]
“Darwin was confronted by a genuinely unusual problem. The mechanism, natural selection, by which he hoped to prove the reality of evolution, had been written about most intelligently by a nonevolutionist [Edward Blyth]. Geology, the time world which it was necessary to attach to natural selection in order to produce [hopefully] the mechanism of organic change, had been beautifully written upon by a man [Charles Lyell] who had publicly repudiated the evolutionary position.” Eiseley, p. 76.
Charles Darwin also plagiarized in other instances.[See Jerry Bergman,“Did Darwin Plagiarize His Evolution Theory?” Technical Journal, Vol. 16, No. 3, 2002, pp. 58–63.]
[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]
Revisionist Creationist bullsh*t. Its sad that you can't accept the fact of Evolution and need to lie about science to promote your ignorant and dishonest faith.

Since: Dec 10

Fogelsville, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Sep 10, 2012
 
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Revisionist Creationist bullsh*t. Its sad that you can't accept the fact of Evolution and need to lie about science to promote your ignorant and dishonest faith.
Perfect post.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Sep 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Pahu wrote:
The Law of Biogenesis
So-called.
Pahu wrote:
Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed.]
Spontaneous generation is actually about magical-poofing, which (as correctly noted) has never been observed. In other words it's arguing against Creationism. The law of biogenesis, as espoused by Pasteur, was referring to the appearance of fully-formed organisms, such as maggots in rotting meat, when it was realized that flies laid eggs in the carcasses. It said very little about the gradual development of life via natural chemical means.
Pahu wrote:
All observations have shown that life comes only from life.
Actually all observations have shown that life comes from non-life. Once you were not alive. Now you are. The reason being is that natural chemical processes converted non-living material into what you are now. Your parents ate non-living food and those chemicals were converted gradually by other chemical processes which eventually resulted in your conception and birth.

Life from non life.

The geological record also indicates an Earth that at one time did not have life. And now it does.

Life from non life.
Pahu wrote:
This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis.
The only thing that's been observed is the creationist's constant bastardization of concepts they do not understand.
Pahu wrote:
The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes (a).
Actually that is not evolution's claim. Evolution claims, and observes, that life changes over time. All it requires is for life to be here. Life IS here. Life evolves. Facts. In order to demonstrate otherwise you need to demonstrate that life is in fact NOT here. Good luck.

Abiogenesis is a hypothesis which deals with the first appearance of life from non-life. The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis for the same reason why the theory of gravity does not rely on the origin of mass. Evolution doesn't care whether life started naturally, if aliens did it, or it was magically poofed into being by God.
Pahu wrote:
Evolutionary scientists reluctantly accept the law of biogenesis.
Nothing reluctant about it.
Pahu wrote:
However, some say that future studies may show how life could come from lifeless matter, despite the virtually impossible odds. Others say that their theory of evolution doesn’t begin until the first life somehow arose. Still others say the first life was created, then evolution occurred. All evolutionists recognize that, based on scientific observations, life comes only from life.
Everything here is fine except for that last sentence, which has already been addressed above.

However it's worth noting that:

1 - You are required to copy-paste religious apologetics in order to attack science you reject for theological reasons, because of your ignorance of science.

2 - If we skip the coy BS about you being "scientific" we can get to the crux of your argument, which is: GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC. Which BY DEFINITION breaks your own rules. For if the so-called "law of biogenesis" worked the way creationists claim it did, then invoking an eternal magical entity known as God violates that rule as that is a "lifeform" which did NOT arise from another lifeform.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Sep 10, 2012
 
Pahu wrote:
“The reasonable view [during the two centuries before Louis Pasteur] was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position.” George Wald,“The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, Vol. 190, August 1954, p. 46.
Wald rejects creation, despite the impossible odds of spontaneous generation.
We now assume every time you reference "spontaneous generation" you mean abiogenesis. The odds are not calculable as not all the variables are known, much less a way to assign objective values to those variables. This renders all appeals to the alleged "impossibility" of abiogenesis creationist lies.
Pahu wrote:
What Wald did not appreciate in 1954 (before, as just one example, the genetic code was discovered) was how the complexity in life is vastly greater than anyone at that time could have imagined.
DNA is what cemented evolution into the only prevailing theory in biology. Abiogenesis is not relevant to that.
Pahu wrote:
Evolutionists also do not recognize:
that with increasing time (their “miracle maker”) comes increasing degradation of the fragile environment on which life depends, and
that creationists have much better explanations (such as the flood) for the scientific observations that evolutionists think show vast time periods.
The "Flood" is a supernatural magical event. As such it is not demonstrable scientifically. Until it can be we go with what the evidence points to - that it never happened. "Flood" explains nothing.
Pahu wrote:
"The beginning of the evolutionary process raises a question which is as yet unanswerable. What was the origin of life on this planet? Until fairly recent times there was a pretty general belief in the occurrence of ‘spontaneous generation.’ It was supposed that lowly forms of life developed spontaneously from, for example, putrefying meat. But careful experiments, notably those of Pasteur, showed that this conclusion was due to imperfect observation, and it became an accepted doctrine [the law of biogenesis] that life never arises except from life. So far as actual evidence goes, this is still the only possible conclusion. But since it is a conclusion that seems to lead back to some supernatural creative act, it is a conclusion that scientific men find very difficult of acceptance. It carries with it what are felt to be, in the present mental climate, undesirable philosophic implications, and it is opposed to the scientific desire for continuity. It introduces an unaccountable break in the chain of causation, and therefore cannot be admitted as part of science unless it is quite impossible to reject it. For that reason most scientific men prefer to believe that life arose, in some way not yet understood, from inorganic matter in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry.” J. W. N. Sullivan, The Limitations of Science (New York: The Viking Press, Inc., 1933), p. 94.
The claim of a "supernatural creative" act is not suggested, nor demonstrable scientifically, ergo it is not scientifically valid.
Pahu wrote:
[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]
Walt Brown is a non-scientist and former NASA engineer turned reality-denying religious Young Earth Creationist apologist. His various "Flood" models destroy all life on Earth in numerous unpleasant ways requiring magic to rescue the hypothesis. He taught school-level physics for a year and has no knowledge of biology or biochemistry.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Sep 10, 2012
 
Pahu wrote:
.
Charles Darwin also plagiarized
The issue is settled. Evolution is a fact Move on.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Sep 10, 2012
 
Pahu wrote:
Acquired characteristics—characteristic s gained after birth—cannot be inherited (a). For example, large muscles acquired by a man in a weight-lifting program cannot be inherited by his child. Nor did giraffes get long necks because their ancestors stretched to reach high leaves. While almost all evolutionists agree that acquired characteristics cannot be inherited, many unconsciously slip into this false belief. On occasion, Darwin did.
Evolution is not Lamarckism.
Pahu wrote:
However, stressful environments for some animals and plants cause their offspring to express various defenses. New genetic traits are not created; instead, the environment can switch on genetic machinery already present. The marvel is that optimal (c) genetic machinery already exists to handle some contingencies, not that time, the environment, or “a need” can produce the machinery.
Evolution is not goal-directed, it is governed by natural selection. Also new genes have been scientifically observed.
Pahu wrote:
Also, rates of variation within a species (microevolution, not macroevolution) increase enormously when organisms are under stress, such as starvation.
Incorrect, the introduction of a sudden niche allows for genetic variability.
Pahu wrote:
Stressful situations would have been widespread in the centuries after a global flood.
There was no global flood. If any credence could be lent to a massive flood, it was certainly a local and not global event. Also a global flood would REQUIRE "macro"-evolution as you put it. But we're quite used to creationists contradicting themselves as well as reality.
Pahu wrote:
a. The false belief that acquired characteristics can be inherited, called Lamarckism
Is irrelevant to the modern evolutionary synthesis, no matter how much Darwin himself may have even toyed with the idea 150 years ago.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Sep 10, 2012
 
Pahu wrote:
Mendel’s laws of genetics and their modern-day refinements explain almost all physical variations occurring within species. Mendel discovered that genes (units of heredity) are merely reshuffled from one generation to another. Different combinations are formed, not different genes. The different combinations produce many variations within each kind of life, as in the dog family.[See Figure 3 on page 5.] A logical consequence of Mendel’s laws is that there are limits to such variation (a). Breeding experiments (b) and common observations (c) also confirm these boundaries.
Not surprising when dogs are the result of ARTIFICIAL selection, which unlike natural selection, is about reducing genetic diversity in order to produce specific traits. This does not invalidate evolution.

It is noted that you are arguing against information that is decades or even over a century out of date.
Pahu wrote:
“Every series of breeding experiments that has ever taken place has established a finite limit to breeding possibilities.” Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (New Haven, Connecticut: Ticknor and Fields, 1982), p. 55.
I note that in order to attack evolution you are using any old source, whether it is consistent with your position or not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Hitching
Pahu wrote:
“All competent biologists acknowledge the limited nature of the variation breeders can produce, although they do not like to discuss it much when grinding the evolutionary ax.” William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1984), pp. 184–185.
Bill Fix is another new-ager, pseudo-scientist and not even a creationist. There seems to be a pattern here - one of attacking evolution via ad-hom.
Pahu wrote:
“A rule that all breeders recognize, is that there are fixed limits to the amount of change that can be produced.” Lane P. Lester and Raymond G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), p. 96.
Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason (Ipswich, Massachusetts: Gambit, 1971), p. 36.William J. Tinkle, Heredity (Houston: St. Thomas Press, 1967), pp. 55–56.
Taking evidence out of context. Pointing to limitations of eugenics is avoiding biological evolution.
Pahu wrote:
“...the distinctions of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1927), p. 322.
Taking Darwin out of context. Plenty of transitionals have been found since his day. His difficulties (back then) our not ours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transiti...

But they ARE yours.
Pahu wrote:
“Indeed, the isolation and distinctness of different types of organisms and the existence of clear discontinuities in nature have been self-evident for centuries, even to non-biologists.” Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985), p. 105.
And Denton has since recanted and does not agree with you any more. This is common knowledge yet even today creationists have no problem with using him or any other invalid source to give the superficial appearance of validity.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of685
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

12 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
'Good without a god': Faces of atheism in Oklahoma (Jul '13) 3 min So What 7,091
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 6 min BenAdam 216,853
New Jersey woman sues over '8THEIST' license plate 1 hr Thinking 1
Atheism Destroyed At Last! - The Debate Of The ... 1 hr Thinking 1,089
Richard Dawkins - God is evil, pedophilesa not ... (Sep '13) 4 hr Igor Trip 2,991
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 4 hr idiot savant 20,827
Islam wins the battle of P.C. causes 10 hr Student 3
•••
•••
•••
•••