Evolution is NOT science: A challenge

Lol. Hey B2P lets have a go on the mat and settle this! I do not believe evolution is a religion. But I believe it takes a wild stretch of the imagination to have randomness produce life in all the complexity and similarity that we see. I believe evolution happens to a certain extent. I believe natural selection occurs within the bounds of genetic material already present. And I believe that one time in a hundred million a mutation of genetic material may change an organism so that it is better suited to a particular environment (like the nylon bug). But I do not believe information and complexity can be increased by randomness. I don't know of any organism that has ever been observed to become more complex. In fact, random mutations almost always produce inferior changes and the ones that are beneficial to the organism in some way are usually detrimental in several other ways. We don't see many species being created but see MANY becoming extinct. We have never observed abiogenesis and the odds of it happening by chance especially in the environment of "primitive earth" are nil. We have completely complex and fully formed life in cambrian rock... And we do not know that radioactive elements have always decayed at the same rate, infact there is evidence to suggest they have not (blast halos, c DK, h increase, and see my post in cosmology and the big bang on red shift quantization, and I forget the others). Well I think thats enough to begin with, besides the fact that you really can't rectify the Bible being absolute truth from God AND evolution because there are too many statements in the Bible that contradict evolution.I believe God created Adam and Eve and all the animals perfect, but since then all creatures have changed and devolved somewhat.I spose thats enough inflammatory statements for one post.

Gah... you people seem so smart until you start trying to defend your theory. I've heard all kinds of things like this and none of them have anything to do with the argument.If you put an immortal monkey in a room with a typewriter and check back in a few billion years he will NOT have written the Bible.Meiotic sorting works with information already present.Hurricanes are far more random than the simplest life.I've heard people say hurricanes are examples of raw energy increasing complexity and adding information. Hurricanes are produced basically by convection evaporation and the earth's rotation. So by their logic, every time I let my bathwater out or watch a cloud rise I am witnessing something comparable to increasing compelxity in evolution... amazing.

Thanks for your reply. Well then it wouldn't be "natural" selection would it? And if God can orchestrate natural selection, why can he not orchestrate the writing of the Bible? And if thats the way he did it, why would God deceive us with the Bible? Perhaps I was too soft in my last post. The wild stretch of the imagination is such a wild stretch it is nothing short of faith/belief. And I also believe that evolution tends to remove God from the minds of people (not all) when they view his creation. And I think evolution is a cornerstone of humanism hedonism atheism and other anti-God systems of thinking. It also drastically erodes the authority of the Bible. If the Bible can't even get the creation right, what good is it beyond a moral code?The entire Bible, God, life, and his creation in general make a WHOLE lot more sense without evolution."For through ONE man sin entered the world and DEATH by sin..."
"For since many died by ONE man's offense how much more have God's grace and the free gift given through the kindness of ONE man, Jesus Christ, have been showered on many people!"
"For just as through ONE man's disobedience many were made sinners, also through ONE man's obedience will many be made righteous."
"From ONE man he made every nation of humanity to live all over the earth."
"For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and everything in them..."
Genesis 1-10
And other passages...If the Bible is wrong about this much stuff, it cannot be from God and we might as well throw it out. If someone could convince me that evolution was true, it would be equivalent to me disbelieving in God.

Isn't there a number, I believe 10^46 or something somewhere around there where if the probability is smaller than 1 in 10^46 it is generally considered an impossibility for all practical purposes?

Actually... no it doesn't unless you believe there is as much complexity and information in a puddle of water as in a human... In which case you've got bigger problems. Hahahahahaha

Almost all Christians don't really give much thought to things like this. I said that it takes pure faith/belief to accept evolution as true and that it is the cornerstone for anti-God thinking. I base that on the fact that evolution is a statistical impossibility, unproven, refuted, and the cornerstone of a world view without God.

That is not why I feel this way. Yes, but the question is, where does the natural end and the supernatural begin? At what point did God create the rules of the natural world? The further and further you push God away from his Creation the less you think about him or need him. Eventually you get to the point where you don't need him at all. You may indulge in the fantastical stretch of the imagination that this universe is only a fantasy world or one of an infinite number of universes.If God's hand in creation is fully seen, his existence is undeniable. If God's hand in creation is removed, his existence is arbitrary.

Which is more contrary to reason and common sense: to believe in something that is a statistical impossibility or to believe in divine creation? What are the chances of divine creation? If you believe in God, 100%. What are the chances of a random creation? If you believe in an infinite series of universes, 100%. So you see both require a belief in something outside the physical knowable realm. But what are the chances of a random creation in THIS universe? Well 1 in a bigger number than anyone can conceive. So if you are limiting thought to THIS universe, which is the only one we have scientific reason to believe exists, then evolution is simply a fantasy.

Blah bla bla... I'm sorry but information and complexity never increase by natural random chance. There is NO proof of this. Or... someone else... Oh come on... We've already established that Catholic Church in the middle ages went off the deep end in MANY ways. Furthermore I know of know statements in the Bible that describe where the earth is. None of these have to do specifically with God's creation of everything. I have no problem with these theories. In fact they help us to understand his creation far better. More blah bla bla... sorry... but if the Bible is written by God through the hands of men it must be perfect. God does not create imperfection. Therefore EVERYTHING in the Bible must be true. If it is not true then it is not perfect, therefore not from God, and I'm wasting my time with it. And you choose to ignore the impossibility of it occuring by random chance. Let me ask you this: If the mainstream view held by scientists today was that evidence supported the fact that the earth and universe came into existence about 6000 years ago and that about 4600 years ago there was a world wide flood, do you think this would have affected your decision to stop being a Christian or not?

You have to believe in overall information and complexity increasing by random chance. This is contrary to observation of the world. Since when has the mainstream ideology meant anything? We've just been talking about this in the Non-Christian moral code thread. Mainstream is usually wrong. Yes, but all the tickets are printed and sold to people. In other words the information already exists and the chances of one ticket out of all the tickets being the right ticket are very good. haha... I'm callin Bullshit on that one... But go on and delude yourself. EXACTLY! There lies the rub. Either we are here as a product of infinite universes (an unsupported belief in itself) or we are here by a divine act. Any attempt to explain how we got here without addressing God automatically addresses the former. Really...

Yes it would suggest the existence of God. That is the point. It is as likely that a 747 would be assembled by a tornado as a person by evolution.I guess you've read "Tornado in a Junkyard"?And though the simplest life is several orders more complex than a 747 people believe we are the products of raw energy and random chance. This defies reason and logic.

I decided I did not really believe in evolution well before I ever read the Creationists arguments against it and long before I ever heard another Christian denounce it. Reading the arguments laid out in Walt Brown's book only confirmed what I intuitively believed. And this is your opinion, which you are entitled to. The thing is that if science shows that all life began only six thousand years ago, that VERY forcefully implies the existence of a creator. I mean if it was accepted as undisputed fact that life began six thousand years ago and there was a global flood, I bet there would be a lot fewer atheists around. However, if the formation of life can be reduced to random chance over unfathomable amounts of time gone by, then the relationship to the creator is weakend if not un-necessary. Thanks for the name. I found his site and read a bunch of the articles just now. It is very interesting. There are some things there that have raised some questions in my mind. However, I think much of his argumentation against a global flood is based on a very simplistic view of the processes involved in such a flood. He ignores the processes of liquifaction and the hydroplate theory. The global flood was a unique event involving irreproducable large scale changes. We cannot possibly compare such an event with small scale flooding action we see today. I used to think that the Bible could go either way in supporting the TOE or creation. But after studying more I have been forced to the conclusion that the Bible does not support the TOE and some passages certainly make a lot more sense with out it. Only if they could also explain the gaping holes in the theory as well.

It removes the possibility that life began by chance. I'm sure many more people would believe in those things too, but hopefully not the scientifically minded folks.The point is, we would be much more aware of the supernatural if the breach between supernatural and natrual was made only a few thousand years ago. That doesn't mean he understands the hydroplate theory. To my knowledge no one teaches the hydroplate theory in school. You OBVIOUSLY do not understand the hydroplate theory.Go here: http://www.creationscience.com and get Walt Brown's book if you want to get a better understanding of it.But please do not do like this guy did and only read a very little of it. You would not expect a person to understand evolutionary theory if they only read a few pages about abiogenisis. Almost every refutation of the HP theory I've ever heard ignores major tenets of that theory and goes on evolutionary assumptions.The only place the HP theory predicts salty water still trapped between the granite and basalt layers is under the leading edge of continents. This prediction was confirmed when a one mile thick layer of salt water was found 10 miles below the tibetan plateau. I just read the first couple of paragraphs and it reveals a complete lack of understanding of the theory. I'm losing respect for you with every word you write. You obviously do not understand liquefaction or sinkholes caused by limestone, which are not related. First of all you're not even thinking of liquefaction. Second of all there is a very neat experiment you can conduct that proves that layered sorting occurs. Certainly not entirely, only somewhat. Why don't you gain a little understanding of the hydroplate theory along with other simple geologic processes first, then we'll talk.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 07-13-2004 12:00 PM

WHAT??!?!? Hahaha... still losing respect for you with every word you write. Wrong. It is true that liquefaction can be caused by earthquakes as this is what caused buildings to sink in the earthquakes in Japan.Sigh... this topic is not about the HP theory, but I will explain this to you since you are so grossly ignorant of it.Liquecaction happens when water streams up through sediments causing them to be suspended. When a spring comes up through sandy soil it forms what we know as quicksand.Liquefaction can also be caused when water laden sediments become pressurized driving more water down into the sediments, and then depressurized causing water flowing back up creating a suspension of the sedimentary particles. This is what happens on a very small scale when you go stand on the beach and waves wash over your feet. When the wave passes a momentary quicksand forms causing your feet to sink down a little with every passing wave. I've also read about a pipeline buried in off the NE coast that burst during the high seas of a storm. The high waves caused such strong liquefaction that the underground pipline floated up and burst. Sigh.... The HP theory never states that granitic crust would become suspended by liquefaction. Liquefaction does not involve liquification of rock, it involves the suspension of sedimentary particles.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, but after your bonehead posts you are hardly in a position to be condescending to me or anyone.Pick at it and think about it I have done.