PROOF against evolution

and what if the tests you have been doing give an unfavourable result or give the wrong results?How would you know?How can you really tell how old something is?Radiation dating can be proven wrong due to the fact that radiation levels on earth change.Here's a book I recommend you read: The Evolution Cruncher by Vance FerrellHeaps of 'scientific' evidence from what i've been told.Passage: 'Full of hundreds of statements by prominent scientists who disprove evolutionary theory. They know evolution is a hoax!"Happy reading

Evidence, please?

There's no such thing as "radiation dating".Radiometric dating, on the other hand, relies on the decay rates of isotopes which don't change. In fact we have astronomical observations that tell us that the decay rates of those isotopes haven't changed in 2 billion years.But this isn't the dating forum. You've been told? You're reccomending a book that you haven't yourself read?

Why not? Becuase you know I will use the circular reasoning fact:Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research
: 2021
Revolution Against Evolution – A Revolution of the Love of GodDating Failures:
http://www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/Radiodating.html
http://www.otherside.net/radomtrc.html
Errors in Radiometric Dating
TurnPike Web Hosting Services and E-Commerce Solutions by Crystal LustHappy reading.

Where did I say that I didn't want to talk about it? I just don't want to talk about it where we're going to piss off an admin by being off-topic. Take it to the dating forum. What's your problem with that?

As noted this is not the dating forum.Also it is not good form to simple post a bunch of bare links. If you do that it is fair game to post a bare link in response.You need to pick out the parts that you are using in support of your argument and be prepared to both explain and defend them.Be warned: There are people around here who are very knowledgeable on some of these topics. You may find your defense more difficult that you think. You may also find that your sources don't know as much as you think they do.

This book is available for $5.00 from CSE Ministry (CSE stands for Creation Science Evangelism). It is not available from any of the three on-line bookstores I visited, Amazon, Borders and Barnes and Noble, though you can find it for $12.60 at some used bookstores. It appears to be self-published by Evolution Facts, and is a compendium of an encyclopaedia they call their Evolution Disproved Series.But save your money, it's also available online.Vance Ferrell's only other book is Cut Funeral Costs: Save 1000 on Every Funeral. He appears to be associated with organizations like Mission Evangelism and SDA-Defend, all out of Altamont, Texas.--Percy

I strongly suggest that anybody who tries to read it be prepared for hideous inaccuracies. I only dipped into it but what I saw was very, very bad.Anybody who relies on that for scientific knowledge has a lot to learn - and a lot of falsehoods to unlearn.

I thought everyone gave up on this ridiculous "refutation" of evolution...a "refutation" that is itself completely refuted.

quote:

---

"(2) Evolution teaches that matter and living things keep becoming more complex, and continually evolve toward greater perfection. Just as inorganic matter becomes successively more ordered and perfect (via the Big Bang and stellar evolution), so living creatures are always evolving into higher planes of existence (via species evolution). The Second Law of Thermodynamics devastates this theory."

---

[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-06-2004]

This quote from the linked-to Creationist page is just ridiculous.

quote:

---

"THE MORE TIME, THE LESS LIKELIHOOD*G. Wald, in "The Origin of Life," in the book, Physics and Chemistry of Life, says "Does time perform miracles?" He then explains something that you and I will want to remember: If the probability of a certain event occurring is only 1/1000 (one chance in a thousand), and we have sufficient time to repeat the attempts many times, the probability that it could happen would continue to remain only one in a thousand. This is because probabilities have no memory!

---

Wrong.First, let's find an event that has about the same probability as that used by the Creationist. The probability of throwing a Yahtzee in a single roll of 5 dice is 1 in 6^4, or 1 in 1296 (the first die can be any number: the next four must match it with a 1 in 6 chance each). That's close enough.Now, no matter how many times you have thrown the dice in the past, on your ONE CURRENT attempt the probability of your throwing a Yahtzee is 1 in 1296. In that sense it does continue to be 1 in 1296, but the Creationist statement does not say that...it says "the probability that it could happen would continue to remain only one in a thousand", which is wrong. The more times you attempt to roll a Yahtzee the better your likelihood of success...that's self evident. Roll 5 dice a thousand times and you more likely than not to hit a Yahtzee somewhere in there: the probability of its occurring doesn't remain 1 in 1296.But wait, the Creationist argument gets much worse...

quote:

---

"But *Wald goes further. He explains that if the event is attempted often enough,the total probability of obtaining it would keep reducing!"

---

That's just plain stupid.If what they claim were true, then the more times someone rolled the dice the LESS LIKELY they would be to hit a Yahtzee sometime during their attempts.

quote:

---

"If it is tried a thousand times and does not even occur once, and then it is tried thousands of more times and never occurs,then the chance of it occurring keeps reducing. If it is tried a million timesand still has not occurred,then the possibility of it occurring has reduced to less than one chance in a million!"

---

Wrong. This Creationist has his probability theory all messed up. It appears he has switched topics but pretends to be sticking to just one.If one is calculating an EMPIRICAL probability, then sure, the more times one attempts to do something and fails the lower the resulting EMPIRICAL probability. But the Creationist already assigned a probability of 1 in 1000 to the event under discussion, so what the heck is this guy trying to do? He makes no sense.

quote:

---

"The point here is that time never works in favor of an event that cannot happen!"

---

More stupidity. Nothing he said up to this point supports his final statement, which supposedly summarizes the "evidences" he just presented. Our Creationist has managed only to lie to his readers by mixing separate ideas that don't belong together into what he pretends to be a coherent whole.[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-08-2004]

The problem with the whole issue of any "proof" by using mathematics, is that the mathematics is just a model of reality with no direct link to the reality.

​

This means that a mathematical model is only as good as it continues to make valid predictions. Take weather forecasting: it breaks down after a few days. This means it has limited usefulness even when the predictions are validated.

​

The corollary is that when a model does not predict what really [is happening \ has happened] that it is the model that must be discarded, rather than reality.

​

The rational person will look at the assumptions built into the mathematical model to see if there are any that do not reflect reality and then try to make adjustments to those assumptions to be closer to reality.

​

Creatortionistas(*), though, are not looking for modeling reality, but for modeling errors: this means that the more errors built in that look good on the surface the more it serves their purpose. This is usually accomplished by making the model as simple as possible: assemble [X] molecule from scratch in one step, and then calculate the probability of it happening in precisely that fashion.

​

Ignoring the point that this does not model the way molecules are assembled in organic systems (a system that vastly reduces the actual possibilities that would be included in a proper scientific calculation, and which has already been addressed) there is another glaring problem with this kind of model: there is no effort made to eliminate similar molecules that would function in the same manner or even in one barely good enough for survival.

​

One of the classics is hemoglobin ... but there are currently some 40 major different kinds of hemoglobin currently existing, including a blue substance in the blood of horseshoe crabs that is quite different from human hemoglobin. There are also mutations, variations in the hemoglobin molecule in people all over the world -- sickle cell anemia is a well known variation.

​

Each of those variations in all the living creatures covering this planet is a working molecule, and the numbers of those known viable variations has not been even attempted to be calculated to "correct" the hemoglobin probability calculation. This would also have to be done for all dead creatures that ever once lived, and even then it would not approach calculating how many possible variations might work.

​

What this means is that even if it were a matter of assembling a working molecule all in one go, the real world probability is not ONE out of [whatever fantastic number], but [an equally fantastic number] out of the [whatever fantastic number].

​

The difference here is that while it is difficult to predict which one of 10 million tickets in a lottery will win the lottery, we can be pretty sure that one of the tickets will win. You could have 10 million alternate universes where each ticket wins in each one ... each ticket could be a winner and look back at calculating the odds that it would win and ignore the fact that the lottery doesn't care which tickets wins.

​

A final note: Once something has happened the probability of it has defaulted to 1: it can't unhappen.

​

Enjoy(*) -- Creatortionistas is a term I use for people who willingly and knowingly lie or misrepresent facts to influence or delude the gullible and ignorant and continue to do so even after the errors have been demonstrated, in some cases numerous times. Paluxy footprints come to mind ... and certainly these bogus probability calculations qualify as well.

I apologise if this has been pointed out earlier as i speed read and skipped over the 13 pages...The Miller experiment is just one tiny little attempt at building life and it spanned a tiny inconsequential amount of time.If we consider that there was perhaps 10's of millions of years and 100's millions of places and 1000s' of billions attempts to produce just one single self replicator.Plus giving 'odds against' is at best a guess divided by a guess...The mere fact that life exists at all is remarkable, but it really is no miracle.If you consider that the odds of you being 'you' then the odds are high as well, how many times would your parents have had to try to make you if they had aimed for the exact 'edition' they got.When we do retrospective 'odds-ing' we are somewaht hide-bound by what we ask or attempt.If we went to the races and bet on a 20 horse race and tried to back the winner by name then we have a 19-1 odds [it's a perfectly weighted h'cap]Looking back the eventual winner seems to have done it against the odds... which ever horse past the post first, it's the mere fact that there was a race meant there had to be a winner.The mere fact there was a planet that COULD sustain life meant that it had to happen.[This message has been edited by V-Bird, 03-23-2004]

The Miller-Urey experiment wasn't even an attempt to produce life. According to Miller, in an interview made a few years ago IIRC they expected less than they actually produced and Urey thought that it probably wouldn't produce anything.

Disregard this post...keep reading...This message has been edited by TheNewGuy03, 05-30-2004 08:18 PM

Well, no one has yet to prove evolution. Nor can they prove that there are actually 6 billion years behind this earth we live on. These assumptions (some made by prominent scientists) are still THEORY. The Big Bang is a THEORY. I believe there is a young earth simply because there is more evidence in its favor. And can someone please explain why the Earth was "coincidentally" placed 93 million miles away from the Sun, JUST enough for all life on this planet to NOT freeze or burn to death? Someone put that there. And no one has convinced me otherwise. Thank you!!