Willowtree's Scientific Evidence against Evolution

You answered with challenging replies. I am preparing a response. Thank You.

What "ultra intelligence"? You haven't demonstrated there was any. We can do everything they did. I doubt that they put anyone on the moon.

Please let's not get sidetracked on fantasies about pryamids and superintelligent ancients.The onus is on willowtree to provide his supposed evidence which contradicts the theory of evolution. His latest "argument" is: how did information increase? I'm still waitingfor willowtree to define information in this context.

Forgive me. You are right.

I see you guys are still humouring Willowtree. Full marks for tolerance.Willow, the existence of moments in ancient history where humans had high levels of technology and societal structure (Greeks, Egyptians etc) is not inconsistent with Evolutionary development of intellect at all. As the guys have stated above, are intellect would have changed very little (but obviously increased) in the 4000 or so years from those oldest societies to the present.The big dip in the middle reflects the rise of Christianity and the prevalence and increasing authority of anti-intellectual doctrines, the likes of which you spout habitually. You'd have to account for another dip in the "ultra state" if Christians ever had their way with modern science.Your constant vomiting of particularly perculiar Biblical interpretation is particularly irksome and quite offensive to Christians that might surf this board.Pyramidology is fraudulent nonsense:
http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/paramyth.htm

Loudmouth answers :The objection that you are ascribing a creator for natural phenomena without evidence. This is how science is objective, it works with natural phenomena that everyone can experience, as compared to personal revelation. Science does not judge on the existence of a diety, but it does argue against supernatural causes for natural phenomena. The diversification of species is a natural phenomena, unless you can show the supernatural emergence of species. END QUOTEEvolutionists are the ones arbitrarily excluding the Creator without evidence. Romans says the God neutral clauses contained in the claims of methodological naturalism and rational enquiry are really, in fact, God exclusionary.IF for any reason, God is excluded as a possibility, He punishes by removing the capacity to deduce His fingerprints. Violators insight/God sense is removed. This explains the hostility of neo-Darwinism at large toward the God of the Bible.The ancients and every generation since them up until the emergence of Darwinism held unquestioning belief that God is the Creator.For thousands and thousands of years, billions and billions of people were all wrong, mistaken, or deceived. That is the MESSAGE contained in the philosophy that the scientific evidence of evolution rests in.We are to believe that the interpretation of scientific evidence by neo-Darwinists cancels out the beliefs of every generation of man that held God created what is made."But we don't make any conclusions about the Divine"I'm sorry, but you are a frickin liar.The very title of this website says "Evolution versus Creationism", this implies the obvious.Genesis says that God suddenly created Adam-kind and the animal kingdom.Darwinism says man and animal slowly and gradually evolved over eons and eons of time.These two scenarios are astronomically apart. Only one can be correct.Evolutionists say animal species randomly mutate.This word "randomly" also means a Creator was not involved. EvC member Darwinsterrier says "what is ruled out" is a single Almighty Creator "operating at the height of His powers".I thought Darwinists were neutral toward God ?This ruling out is the a priori decision that triggers the wrath of God/sense removal.Carl Sagan ruled Him out too when he uttered his famous opening statement about "the cosmos is all there ever was". Sagan then went on to present scientific evidence, which of course was gathered under the false guise of neutrality. Sagan supporters : How does the evidence disprove God ? What qualifications did Sagan possess to make a determination about the Divine ?I believe mutation is observed to be a "mindless and random process".
I believe this process has the appearance of mindlessness/randomness and I believe it was created by God and progammed to operate this way.The Book of Esther doesn't mention God's name - not even once, yet every respected mainstream scholar agrees that it belongs in the Canon. It tells the story of Esther and Mordecai emerging victorious from the threat of genocide of Jews. It is an account of seemingly random and chance and fluke events that twist and turn. The message of the Book of Esther is: GOD IS IN CONTROL. Thats the reason He included it in the Holy Writ.Now Cal State physicist Mark Perakh has written a book called "Unintelligent Design" (2004). This book is specifically written to counter the claims of Dembski, Behe, and Johnson.Perakh Quote :"Of course, the proponets of ID theory may insist that the alleged intelligent Creator is not constrained in His choice of design and can, if He wishes so, create systems which appear random despite having been designed. This argument would essentially make the entire dispute meaningless by erasing any discernable difference between objects or events that are designed and those that are not." ENDI interpret this statement to say "randomness" also means a Creator/Designer was not involved.Once again, how does the scientific evidence of random (mutation) suggest no Creator ?random, mindless, fluke, accident all have dual meanings when (atheist) Darwinists use them.The word evolution also means the Genesis creation scenario is not true. How does the evidence disprove Genesis ?I believe the micro-evolution that drives the animal kingdom to be a process created by God.Massive error (intentional) is introduced when it is assumed that mankind also evolved.There simply isn't enough physical fossil evidence in existence to conclude man evolved. Leakey/Pilbeam/Darwinsterrier all agree the amount in existence is "meagre".Darwinists have no other option but to cling to the hope of finding a lot more transitional bones that can be independently verified as human like. They have arbitrarily decided God is not an option. Romans, like I said, tells us why.Michael Behe evidenced that the eye could not of evolved because there is no evolutionary process by which the complexity of its design could have gradually came into existence. The eye, like blood clotting systems, are irreducibly complex.Once again, Behe's clear and simple point is that the whole enchilada must be present or it aint so.Mark Perakh completely ignores this simple claim by re-defining "irreducibly complex" to be a synonym for randomness. Perakh evades ever answering exactly how the complexities in question slowly evolve and work all at the same time.Perakh Quote :"Algorithmic Theory of Probability (ATP) has established that irreducible complexity is just a synonym for randomness. Whatever examples of biochemical systems Behe can come up with, he cannot eschew the mathematical fact: if a system is indeed irreducibly complex, it its random. Of course, a system that is the result of ID is, by defintion, not random. The conclusion: if a system is irreducibly complex, it is not a product of design. " END QUOTEI interpret this statement to completely evade the claims of Behe. And I interpret this statement to arbitrarily equate IC with randomness without any explanatory rationale.A clever sixth grader could of offered this argument of inverting/saying the opposite of what is claimed by Behe. I read this entire book waiting to see Behe refuted, and all the author could do was re-define IC, and say nothing about Behe's defintion, which said defintion asks how the irreducibly complex might have evolved and worked at the same time.In lieu of Perakh's quote, how does science justify making a determination of no Designer from the scientific evidence of randomness ? I thought science was God neutral ?I credit Perakh for being honest and plainly saying the evidence also says no Creator was involved.Philosophically, every debater who knows the status of the argument says God cannot be proven or disproven.The only people saying there is no Creator are the new kids on the block - the Darwinists. They conclude this position from their worldview and claim the empirical evidence supports it. But when questioned how the evidence disproves God they suddenly deny that they are ........as per the responses prove me right.

And it is creationism that insists that the devine can not exist, though they think they are on the opposite side. It is the extremists who can not read the Bible as it must be read. They are the ones who say that all is lost if their particular interpretation is not shown to be correct.And it is shown to be false. That is why it is not just the scientists who are against creationism as we know it. It is the Christians as well.

So willowtree, out of that lengthy diatribe, where is your scientific evidence against evolution?

And it is the Christians that are arbitrarily excluding the almighty pink unicorns without evidence!!!!Ok, first of all the existence of theistic evolutionist voids your point. After all, they still believe in god so they should be able to see his "fingerprints" yet somehow they don't. Secondly this thread was made so we could see SCIENTIFIC evidence that falsifies evolution. I am sorry but it doesn't matter what the Romans say. Until you can provide evidence that god exists or evidence that there is a massive Atheistic cover-up going on you arguments are baseless.

Willowtree,WTF!?! You have not put forth anything that hasn't already been dealt with and found lacking. So evolutionary theory excludes the actions of a "supreme being"!?! So what? Show me how you can objectively say that E=mc2 includes a creator! Or gravity! Or the germ theory of disease! Or, or, or...Science limits itself to nature and natural phenomena. It excludes the supernatural b/c it has no method to test or falsify it. Science knows its limitations and sticks to them. I suggest you do the same.Also, you are putting forth the fallacy of false alternatives when you say it is either evolution or Christian "biblical" creation. What about the other creation myths?So, from your post I can deduce that you are one of three things: 1)an ignorant Christian (I am not saying that all Christians are ignorant), 2)a brainwashed and misled Christian, or 3)a frickin' liar!

Let the record show that every "response" to my post # 276 to be a flimsy one liner type of reply.Reply 277 doesn't make any sense as the author suddenly offers disheveled claims. Maybe this was a late night post created under the influence.Reply 278 is routine predictible for this person. No objective person monitoring this debate could even remotely have respect for this type of participation.Reply 279 completely evades the substance of my post. This person is barely participating, but not enough to differentiate from the previous post.Reply 280 is really no different but it will have to do.You are all wasting my time, you all lose the debate by default, which I must conclude to be caused by lack of arguments.How can anyone respect these replies in lieu of post # 276 ?I don't think I am right - I know I am right.Hitchy, if you had paid attention to this debate you would know that my opponents specifically argued that science/evolution is Divine neutral not Divine exclusionary.Hitchy, how does the empirical evidence disprove God/Genesis ?" it doesn't claim to "Then you need to correct what you said in your first paragraph about ToE excluding "supreme being".IF ToE is God neutral then why are Darwinists so hostile to the God of the Bible ? Could it be that they really are making determinations about the Divine contrary to the claims of methodological naturalism and rational enquiry ?mindless, random, chance, accident, fluke, purposeless, also means there is no Almighty Creator when neo- Darwinists use these words.
How so ? And if so, why ? What rational leap of logic is utilized to determine the lack of a Creator based on the scientific evidence ?I've made my point.The answer is obvious. Evolution means gradual and slow improvement via mutation. This process has no room for Genesis because of the eons and eons of time it requires AND because Genesis clearly says life was suddenly created by God.Evolution deduces no Creator based upon an interpretation of the empirical evidence. My point is that it all comes down to worldview whether it is admitted or not.

"Gradual and slow improvement?" Why don't you at least get a clue what you're arguing against, WT? You've been around here long enough by now to no that none of us atheistic fiends, despite our Godsensectomies, are so ignorant of the findings of biology as to think that evolution is about "improvement!" It's about change to get by under the current conditions - no teleology there at all.And what Genesis "clearly says" about quite a few things has long since been shown not to be in agreement with physical reality - if "life was suddenly created" it sure left a peculiar multi-million year record of that suddenness.

Willowtree, it was a very simple question: where is your scientific evidence against evolution?I note that the ball is in your court to detail what is mean by "information" in the DNA context so that further discussion can be held on your agruments from ignorance.

Umm, so you just missed the 5 or so threads that have already discussed eye evolution? Wrong, evolution goes against Genesis not god. Just because Genesis is excluded by evolution doesn't mean that there is no god. There is no evidence for god and there is no evidence against.
Once again, I ask if the TOE implies no god then why are there theistic evolutionists and if only belevers in god can see god's fingerprints then why don't theistic evolutionist see them as well? I'm just curious, how do you know you're right? I mean surely you admit that there is a possibility that there is no god. Well, I personally try to avoid getting into the really scientific arguments I let the experts do that. And also the eye and fossil topics have been covered in other threads.

Hi, I'm kind of new here but I went ahead and skimmed this post.Here's a quote that caught my eye, from WILLOWTREE: "For thousands and thousands of years, billions and billions of people," haven't believed in Christianity, and the majority of the world still doesn't. So does this automatically make Christianity wrong? Based on just that, no. Reason being is that the validity of something should not rest on how many people believe it or for how long; it rests on the evidence acquired and how well it stands against scrutiny.For thousands of years before the Greeks people may have believed the earth was flat and that the sun moved. That doesn't mean they're right. As humans advanced further and came up with new instruments or new discoveries never previously used they were able to figure out that the people of the past were wrong. So it's not that the people who thought the world was flat and that the sun moved were deceived, it's that they simply didn't have the right instruments or discoveries at the time to give a better answer.(EDIT)
Also, I'm not sure if you were implying that The Theory of Evolution is trying to disprove the existence of God or not. If you are you might want to read more on Evolution as God can still exist even with existence of Evolution. Reason being is that Evolution says nothing of how life began and life could have still been "created" by God. The argument against this is abiogensis, so that's what you'd need to argue against.However, you do state that Evolution disproves Genesis from The Bible. If you read it as literal then you are correct, it does (Though not purposefully). Of course that does not mean it disproves a creator at all since Christianity is not the only religion that says there is a creator. It would merely find a scientific fallacy in the Bible. Of course this is then assuming that you believe if Genesis is proved wrong (Or that it must be taken literally) then the entirety of Christianity must be wrong, not everyone believes that.
(EDIT)G'luck [This message has been edited by Garf, 02-22-2004]