Evidence against Evolution

[beerisit]

Quote ...

Is abiogenesis possible? Not only are proteins never formed in nature outside of living cells, the amino acids from which they are built are of two kinds: Half are called left-handed and half right-handed. Only proteins containing all left handed amino acids will work in living things because proteins which contain any right-handed amino acids have the wrong shape and will not connect properly to the proteins around them. It is a bit like when you take a piece out of a puzzle, turn it upside down and try to put it back in where you took it out. It is the same size and shape, but it won’t fit. In nature, all left handed amino acids are only formed by living cells. Amino acids formed in experiments like Miller’s, are half left, and half right-handed so they will not work in the proteins of living things. This is more scientific evidence that life could not form without a Creator. Add it to the fact that in nature, no proteins at all will form outside of cells.*

Scientific Evidence that God Created Life

I thought you or somebody was providing EVIDENCE against evolution. 32 pages and NOTHING.

 

[dust1n]

Creationists should explain exactly.. But no evolutionist - you know those with scientific testing- cannot explain simply how life got here

Because it isn't simple. Sorry, science can't crush volumes and volumes worth of information into one single, easy-to-understand sentence like a pastor can (pretend to do). Either way, I'd say the overall benefits of its existence in the last 250 so years would heavily outway an outdated book by goatherders.

Goatherders from thousands of years ago: This is the infallable word of god.
Reaction: Oh, obviously.

Scientists, modern people, from all ages: This is an obversation that I made, and I am simply noting the obversation that I made. In order to ensure my own personal observations are worth a ****, I will do something called an 'experiment' which allows to empirically measure the observation of such phenomenon, in which it can be tested and created thousands and thousands of times by anyone who wished to do so.
Reaction: Where's the evidence that what you are saying is right?!
Scientists, modern people, from all ages: Because I ran the experiment. If you run the experiment under the same conditions, you will get similar results.
Reaction: See, I know you couldn't explain it. I'm going back to the goatherding book.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Quote ...

Is abiogenesis possible? Not only are proteins never formed in nature outside of living cells, the amino acids from which they are built are of two kinds: Half are called left-handed and half right-handed. Only proteins containing all left handed amino acids will work in living things because proteins which contain any right-handed amino acids have the wrong shape and will not connect properly to the proteins around them. It is a bit like when you take a piece out of a puzzle, turn it upside down and try to put it back in where you took it out. It is the same size and shape, but it won’t fit. In nature, all left handed amino acids are only formed by living cells. Amino acids formed in experiments like Miller’s, are half left, and half right-handed so they will not work in the proteins of living things. This is more scientific evidence that life could not form without a Creator. Add it to the fact that in nature, no proteins at all will form outside of cells.*

Scientific Evidence that God Created Life

Wow! Thomas Heinze has made a breakthrough discovery in biochemical study!

He really needs to submit his findings, including his predictions, tests, and falsifiability, to the Journal of Biochemical Research. If it passes peer review, he could be in line for a Nobel Prize.




Wait...just read the "evidence" by this ex-missionary and publisher.

Never mind.

 

[dust1n]

I thought you or somebody was providing EVIDENCE against evolution. 32 pages and NOTHING.

Apparently, religious people are use to the idea that "anything counts as evidence" as long as a goatherder writes about in a book.

 

[johnhanks]

Creationists should explain exactly..

You have the usual creationist knack of missing the point.

But no evolutionist - you know those with scientific testing- cannot explain simply how life got here

But neither can you. As I tried to explain earlier, your proferred answer - "God did it" - is actually no answer at all: it simply fills in a name for the bit we don't understand, and declares the problem solved.

The creationist posture "You don't have an answer but we do" is pure sophistry.

 

[ArtieE]

Quote ...

Is abiogenesis possible? Not only are proteins never formed in nature outside of living cells, the amino acids from which they are built are of two kinds: Half are called left-handed and half right-handed. Only proteins containing all left handed amino acids will work in living things because proteins which contain any right-handed amino acids have the wrong shape and will not connect properly to the proteins around them. It is a bit like when you take a piece out of a puzzle, turn it upside down and try to put it back in where you took it out. It is the same size and shape, but it won’t fit. In nature, all left handed amino acids are only formed by living cells. Amino acids formed in experiments like Miller’s, are half left, and half right-handed so they will not work in the proteins of living things. This is more scientific evidence that life could not form without a Creator. Add it to the fact that in nature, no proteins at all will form outside of cells.*

I could have missed it but I can't find any evidence here that Allah or Brahman or the Christian God or any deity created life...?

 

[colaboy]

There are no scientific answers to all these questions...

Oh yeah they all just appeared after an explosion ummm

Seems like a lot of faith is required to believe evolution

That's right. I did not present any scientific facts - why bother when I have seen in your others posts the distain and disinterest you show in them. Also if a lack of scientiic facts lessens my post in any way - then the entire sum of your posts are nothing. Anyway my point was about the absence of scientific facts in the bible. All of the things mentioned, that the bible fails to address, can be answered by science though.

What there is in my post is a few questions for you - but you have failed to answer any of them. These are the sentences that terminate with a question mark.

All you have done is take on your commonly used tone of ridicule. "they all just appeared after a big bang". Well no. If you bothered to learn anything about how the stars, planets and living things came about following the inflation of the universe from a single point - which would take all of 10 minutes on a wiki page - you'd learn that it didn't just happen - it happened though in a very precise manner.

Isn't it you that thinks it just happened? How did god come to be?

 

[McBell]

I didn't claim I wrote it..

Actually, yes you did.
By not saying it was another's work you imply that it is your work.

using another's work is not what is frowned upon (well, mostly not frowned upon, there are exceptions).
it is not attributing another's work to said other that is frowned upon.


ANY time you use some one else's work and do not actively give credit to that other some one, it is plagiarism.

 

[EvidenceOfAbsence]

If creationists want to beat us at our game, they first have to understand the RULES of the game.

It's not hard to read up on what constitutes as good evidence. And considering the effort you guys put into banging your skull against the steel wall of evolution, you could at least do some reading into how to put forward a good argument.

You HAVE to address the fossil record.
You HAVE to address the DNA and dormant genes that every being on the planet share.

If evolution is a false theory, then christian diabetics should stop taking their insulin, as the only reason it works is founded on biological similarity and common ancestry. In addition to every other drug that has been derived from biological testing on animals that just so happen to share similarities in our organic systems.

If god were to create is as a "different" species on the planet, we'd share very few similarities with just about everything else on the face of the earth.

These are just a few points, if you were looking for something else from the archives of things that are integral to our survival that would not work if it weren't for basing our medical foundation on the fact that we share common ancestry.

 

[McBell]

Even if evolution were proven to be an unreliable theory (It won't, the wealth of evidence built up since the time of it's inception towers over the zero evidence of creation that has been gathered over 3000 years of human history) you'd then still have to prove that this "creation" was attributed to YOUR god.

Actually, even before he get to showing it is HIS god, he needs to show creation, then that it was a god, THEN that it was HIS god.....

 

[McBell]

OK Great ! Post the evidence that science has found
Of how life happened on earth. I'm sure there is a general agreed upon
List of facts that the scientific community has proved with evidence
Go ahead .. Lay it on us and enlighten us

Again with the avoiding presenting any of the alleged facts against evolution?

Perhaps you should start another thread for your off topic avoidance tangent...

 

[JustThinking]

Because it isn't simple. Sorry, science can't crush volumes and volumes worth of information into one single, easy-to-understand sentence like a pastor can (pretend to do). Either way, I'd say the overall benefits of its existence in the last 250 so years would heavily outway an outdated book by goatherders.

Goatherders from thousands of years ago: This is the infallable word of god.
Reaction: Oh, obviously.

Scientists, modern people, from all ages: This is an obversation that I made, and I am simply noting the obversation that I made. In order to ensure my own personal observations are worth a ****, I will do something called an 'experiment' which allows to empirically measure the observation of such phenomenon, in which it can be tested and created thousands and thousands of times by anyone who wished to do so.
Reaction: Where's the evidence that what you are saying is right?!
Scientists, modern people, from all ages: Because I ran the experiment. If you run the experiment under the same conditions, you will get similar results.
Reaction: See, I know you couldn't explain it. I'm going back to the goatherding book.

OK love to read the experiment where I can show life
evolved from lifelessness .. List it here so I verify it

 

[colaboy]

"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. *Variation (microevolution) is the real part. *The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. *Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. *Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. *What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. *Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. *And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. *But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. *This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. *It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.

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

I love it when this article gets dragged up - and I always point people to the creationists website Answers In Genesis which directly attacks some of the main arguments here as faulty logic Arguments Creationists Should Avoid - Answers in Genesis

 

[colaboy]

OK love to read the experiment where I can show life
evolved from lifelessness .. List it here so I verify it

And once again I'll ask you how god was created.

 

[EvidenceOfAbsence]

OK love to read the experiment where I can show life
evolved from lifelessness .. List it here so I verify it

Please look for the Wikipedia article covering the Miller-Urey experiment.

The experiments showed that simple organic compounds of building blocks of proteins and other macromolecules can be formed from gases with the addition of energy.

The article shows the experiment and how to perform it.

Knowing classic creationist arguments you will say this data is insufficient, yet you are asserting that we believe a 2000 year old book as an accurate account of biological history.

Please, in return, provide me with an experiment to:

A. Prove that all species exist now, as they did since the time of Pangia.
B. Prove that the earth was formed in 7 days.
C. Prove that all of this bears a mark that is incomparable with the god that you are asserting exists.

Alternatively you could just completely avoid this post and to continue to annoy us with unsubstantiated claims that you are unwilling to provide evidence for.

 

[JustThinking]

Please look for the Wikipedia article covering the Miller-Urey experiment.

The experiments showed that simple organic compounds of building blocks of proteins and other macromolecules can be formed from gases with the addition of energy.

The article shows the experiment and how to perform it.

Knowing classic creationist arguments you will say this data is insufficient, yet you are asserting that we believe a 2000 year old book as an accurate account of biological history.

Please, in return, provide me with an experiment to:

A. Prove that all species exist now, as they did since the time of Pangia.
B. Prove that the earth was formed in 7 days.
C. Prove that all of this bears a mark that is incomparable with the god that you are asserting exists.

Alternatively you could just completely avoid this post and to continue to annoy us with unsubstantiated claims that you are unwilling to provide evidence for.

Read the experiment.. But no life was formed. Not in 1953 or since

Your claims of evolution are unsubstantiated so far

 

[EvidenceOfAbsence]

Read the experiment.. But no life was formed. Not in 1953 or since

Your claims of evolution are unsubstantiated so far

It's a scientific theory, regarded as true as the theory of gravity, if you wish to disprove it then the burden of proof is upon you.

Since you failed to propose any ways to falsify evolution it will remain as fact, and the only logical conclusion would be that you have the wrong reasons for believing what you do.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Why are you still discussing abiogenesis?

I thought the point of this thread was to present evidence against biological evolution?

Do you need biological evolution explained to you so you can concentrate on the subject.

 

[JustThinking]

Please look for the Wikipedia article covering the Miller-Urey experiment.

The experiments showed that simple organic compounds of building blocks of proteins and other macromolecules can be formed from gases with the addition of energy.

The article shows the experiment and how to perform it.

Knowing classic creationist arguments you will say this data is insufficient, yet you are asserting that we believe a 2000 year old book as an accurate account of biological history.

Please, in return, provide me with an experiment to:

A. Prove that all species exist now, as they did since the time of Pangia.
B. Prove that the earth was formed in 7 days.
C. Prove that all of this bears a mark that is incomparable with the god that you are asserting exists.

Alternatively you could just completely avoid this post and to continue to annoy us with unsubstantiated claims that you are unwilling to provide evidence for.

Can't give you an experiment since I never asserted the 3 things listed

I assert the following:

All species were created individually.
While variations can happen within a species, they do not
mutate into another species.

Humans are basically the same now as they were
found in the oldest fossil records .. No evidence of a time when we
were just starting to form legs or eyes. Humans appear
with all their current capabilities.

7 earth days of creation? Don't believe this

 

[JustThinking]

It's a scientific theory, regarded as true as the theory of gravity, if you wish to disprove it then the burden of proof is upon you.

Since you failed to propose any ways to falsify evolution it will remain as fact, and the only logical conclusion would be that you have the wrong reasons for believing what you do.

I think even among your esteemed scientific community
you would find much disagreement about this

There are scientists that do not believe in evolution
But I have read none that do not believe in gravity