proof against evolution

[flupke]

Come on, all you creationists and intelligent designists ! I know you have it...
Come up with a well formulated proof against evolution.

 

[dawny0826]

Come on, all you creationists and intelligent designists ! I know you have it...
Come up with a well formulated proof against evolution.

Genesis...

Pick a version...any version...King James, NIV, NLT...

 

[Abram]

There is no proof against evolution. Thats to broad of a statment. There is somesorts of evolution we can see today (dogs, cats, ect...)

Darwinism is almost dead though. There is a ton of science that works against it. Cambrain explosion, DNA, and there is zero fossil evidence.

 

[flupke]

Genesis...

Pick a version...any version...King James, NIV, NLT...

Mmm, a strong creationist here. You are taking an arbitrarily chosen book as 'proof'. If you want to use it as real proof, though, you'll first have to prove that it's true. As you will most likely say you 'believe' it to be true, and can never prove it, you can therefore NOT use it as proof against an alternative theory. That's plain logic.

 

[flupke]

There is no proof against evolution. Thats to broad of a statment. There is somesorts of evolution we can see today (dogs, cats, ect...)

Darwinism is almost dead though. There is a ton of science that works against it. Cambrain explosion, DNA, and there is zero fossil evidence.

You're obviously mistaken:

1. the explosion means there was a lot of speciation on a short time. It means there was a strong pressure on evolution. It's an indication of a specific mechanism, not evidence against it. On the contrary, stating that there was a lot of speciation in a short time (relatively speaking) does not mean a creator made them in that time.

2. One of the latest issues of the journal "science" reflects on the greatest achievements of 2005. This is chosen to be the complete genomic data from various organisms. Everything supports evolution; nothing contradicts it. On the contrary, it revealed a lot of new more detailed mechanisms.

3. There are fossils, therefore it cannot be 'zero'.

 

[dawny0826]

Mmm, a strong creationist here. You are taking an arbitrarily chosen book as 'proof'. If you want to use it as real proof, though, you'll first have to prove that it's true. As you will most likely say you 'believe' it to be true, and can never prove it, you can therefore NOT use it as proof against an alternative theory. That's plain logic.

And logic is everything, isn't it?

 

[flupke]

And logic is everything, isn't it?

In talking about 'proof', yes.

In talking about 'belief', clearly not...

 

[Abram]

You're obviously mistaken:

1. the explosion means there was a lot of speciation on a short time. It means there was a strong pressure on evolution. It's an indication of a specific mechanism, not evidence against it. On the contrary, stating that there was a lot of speciation in a short time (relatively speaking) does not mean a creator made them in that time.

But it put the Darwin tree upside down, bringing the more dominate animals first.

2. One of the latest issues of the journal "science" reflects on the greatest achievements of 2005. This is chosen to be the complete genomic data from various organisms. Everything supports evolution; nothing contradicts it. On the contrary, it revealed a lot of new more detailed mechanisms.

Do your homework on this one. It walks in to irreducible complexity.

3. There are fossils, therefore it cannot be 'zero'.

Of course ther are fossils, you'ld be a fool to ignore that. But there is not evidence of a missing link or the in between

 

[sandy whitelinger]

How about we start with proof that God exists?

Albert Einstein’s equation states that Energy = Mass x C2. The law of physics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Which means the energy that created the universe cannot have a beginning nor an end. Also, there must be something that existed before the universe and that will continue to exist after the universe. That is the definition of God.

By applying Albert Einstein’s formula, the universe must have a creator because the universe has mass (M). God does not need a creator because God does not have mass (M). God is energy (E).

Thus when people ask the question, “If God created mankind, who created God?”, they mistakenly imagine God as having a form or mass. Only mass needs a creator, not energy.

The creator of mass is of course, energy. The theory of God’s existence is in line with mathematical theory.

​

 

[Smoke]

God is energy.

Are you really sure that's how you want to define God?

 

[Halcyon]

How about we start with proof that God exists?

Albert Einstein’s equation states that Energy = Mass x C2. The law of physics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.


Which means the energy that created the universe cannot have a beginning nor an end. Also, there must be something that existed before the universe and that will continue to exist after the universe. That is the definition of God.






​

Sandy, if energy cannot be destroyed or created, how then did God create the energy?​

 

[ch'ang]

How about we start with proof that God exists?

Albert Einstein’s equation states that Energy = Mass x C2. The law of physics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Which means the energy that created the universe cannot have a beginning nor an end. Also, there must be something that existed before the universe and that will continue to exist after the universe. That is the definition of God.

The part that I bolded is the last logical line in your post, after that it is a series of contradictions and misunderstandings.

Also, there must be something that existed before the universe and that will continue to exist after the universe. That is the definition of God.[/

I don't see how you can draw that conclusion from the law of conservation of mass-energy. Also since mass and energy can't be destroyed only changed the universe will never end, it will just continue expanding forever according to the current theory.

By applying Albert Einstein’s formula, the universe must have a creator because the universe has mass (M). God does not need a creator because God does not have mass (M). God is energy (E).

Mass and energy are the same thing just different sides to the same coin as proven by Einstein’s theory that you used above so saying mass needs a creator while energy doesn't is just silly. Also the law of conservation of mass-energy says that neither can be created or destroyed get your facts right.

Thus when people ask the question, “If God created mankind, who created God?”, they mistakenly imagine God as having a form or mass. Only mass needs a creator, not energy.

See my above point, you seem to have a sever misunderstanding of physics.

 

[ladylazarus]

No, God is not energy. Energy is energy. God is god (and also imaginary). They are different words that have different meanings, and it is not your place to redefine them.

 

[flupke]

But it put the Darwin tree upside down, bringing the more dominate animals first.

No it doesn't. All animals 'dominate' at the time of their existence. If they weren't, they would be extinct. At any time, 'domination' means to be fully adapted to the THEN existing pressures. So no problem there.

Do your homework on this one. It walks in to irreducible complexity.

YOU do your homework and read what leading scientists have to say this month about genomic data and how it conforms well to the theory of evolution.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/310/5756/1878


And why would complexity be contradicting evolution ? Evolution strives towards complexity.

Of course ther are fossils, you'ld be a fool to ignore that. But there is not evidence of a missing link or the in between

Every new fossil was a previous 'missing link'. Each time we find a fossil of an extinct species, it again confirms evolutionary theory, selection mechanisms competing out unadapted organisms for which only fossils remain.
Therefore, the statement "zero fossil evidence" is wrong.

 

[flupke]

How about we start with proof that God exists?

Albert Einstein’s equation states that Energy = Mass x C2. The law of physics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.



Which means the energy that created the universe cannot have a beginning nor an end. Also, there must be something that existed before the universe and that will continue to exist after the universe. That is the definition of God.
​

When the space-time continuum reaches a singularity, there is no such thing as 'creation' because there was no time 'before'. If you want to use physics as your proof of god, be sure to go a bit further than the now very old einsteinian type of physics. We're a century more evolved now.

By applying Albert Einstein’s formula, the universe must have a creator because the universe has mass (M). God does not need a creator because God does not have mass (M). God is energy (E).

Prove that 'that which has a mass must be created'. Unproven premise.

Also, since energy and mass are interchangeable, and you say god is energy, therefore: god is also mass and your unproven premise would apply to god as well.

Thus when people ask the question, “If God created mankind, who created God?”, they mistakenly imagine God as having a form or mass. Only mass needs a creator, not energy.

prove it. Don't use an unproven and completely assumed nitwit-premise as proof.


​

 

[Flappycat]

Behe has apprently withdrawn his support for his original conception of "irreducible complexity" and has yet to come up with anything to replace it. The problem with it is that it doesn't account for how the presence of a struction within a system would affect the future of its evolution or the continuing necessity of what it replaces. For example, there are plenty of invertabrates that function perfectly well without a heart because they rely upon a more primitive system. A full-sized mammal wouldn't be able to function with such a primitive system, but the first animal to have what our wonderful cardiovascular system grew out of wasn't a full-sized mammal and probably wasn't even a vertebrate. Even the most primitive cell may rely on complex systems for its survival, but the fact that all living things have such systems may have a lot to do with the fact that the existance of these systems would have given them a strong competitive edge in an environment in which most things relied upon something more primitive. Indeed, before the oxygen holocaust resulting, most probably, from the appearance of cyanobacteria, the Earth was a friendlier place for more simplistic organisms. Hehe, funnily, we might not be the first creature on the planet to risk becoming a victim of our own success.

 

[painted wolf]

actually the "Cambrian explosion" isn't quite as mysterious as it used to be.
We have found numerous fossils predating the Cambrian. Trilobite ancesotors are from the PreCambrian and are much simpler than thier Cambrian decendants, for example.
Archea, those wierd early single celled fellows are the oldest living things with fossils from rocks as old as 3.8 billion years ago. Today they are restricted to "extreme" environments such as glaciers, gysers and deep ocean vents...once they ruled the world.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/archaea/archaeafr.html
http://www.trilobites.info/origins.htm
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/PSCF12-97Miller.html

wa:do

 

[linwood]

Behe has apprently withdrawn his support for his original conception of "irreducible complexity" and has yet to come up with anything to replace it.

When did he do this Flappy?

He was still spouting about it at the Dover ID trial until the laywers made him eat it.
It would be nice to think that trial made him do it.

 

[Antagonist]

There is no proof against evolution, similarly, there is no proof against the book of genesis.

Evolution is a theoretical concept with a certain amount of evidence backing it up, whereas the book of genesis is simply a faith story to try and implant into the minds of the lesser gifted of human species that life has a purpose (life in this sense regarding human). Life has no 'purpose', purpose implies an intention, or deliberation. Life does not have this, it is purely random, a great shame to see that some people are so insecure in their own mindsets that they have to find a sort of comfort believing that they are here for a 'purpose'.

Anyhow, Evolution has more 'clout' in the world today than the book of genesis. Evolution has evidence to support it, genesis merely has belief, a mental acceptance of something's validity, not evidence.

 

[randb]

The part that I bolded is the last logical line in your post, after that it is a series of contradictions and misunderstandings.







I don't see how you can draw that conclusion from the law of conservation of mass-energy. Also since mass and energy can't be destroyed only changed the universe will never end, it will just continue expanding forever according to the current theory.







Mass and energy are the same thing just different sides to the same coin as proven by Einstein’s theory that you used above so saying mass needs a creator while energy doesn't is just silly. Also the law of conservation of mass-energy says that neither can be created or destroyed get your facts right.







See my above point, you seem to have a sever misunderstanding of physics.

Mass isn't always conserved...Anyone with a basic knowledge of nuclear physics would say that mass isn't conserved in nuclear reactions... BTW... hi everyone!!!