Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad Science?

Almeyda,Abiogenesis is not a logical requirement for evolution. God could have created the first single celled organism. If another hypothesis can account for the original organism(s), & evolution still occur, then abiogenesis is not a part of the ToE.Mark

Umm no. Your missing the point here. You see God thats not science. Were not allowed to think about God as an explaination you see. So thats why life came from non-living chemicals, cause were here. God is not science. We cant think of a creator or a designer even if the evidence supports it. The whole point of evolutionary theory is to prove origins & life by pure science and natural procceses. Myth and miracle are not part of science you see. Now that the origins is bankrupt. Evolution has now moved away from the problem that destroys evolution to the ground. The foundation.

Wrong again.The "point" of evolutionary theory is exactly the same as the point of any other scientific theory: to provide the best explanation of the evidence.

Almeyda, Irrelevant. As long as there are potential explanations other than abiogenesis, & evolution can still occur, then abiogenesis isn't a logically necessary part of evolutionary theory. Life could have existed as long as the universe has, for example, assuming cosmologists got the big bang wrong.Furthermore, evolutionary theory doesn't seek to explain the origins of life, only what happened after it was there. It's not your prerogative to tell biologists what is a part of their theory & what isn't. Or are you saying we can't study atomic theory without firstly rejecting god outright, & assuming the Big Bang? You can't have it both ways. In both cases it is possible to study evolution & sub-atomic particles without knowledge of where they came from. So again, abiogenesis is not a logically irremovable part of evolutionary theory. If nothing else it's nice to know you accept abiogenesis & evolution as the best scientific explanations of the origins & diversity of life, respectively.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 06-09-2004 06:56 AM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

sure we can!the problem is that evidence doesn't support it.don't bother citing behe, btw, i just finished a paper refuting his argument quite thoroughly.

The cell itself is evidence for design. Look at you all avoiding the origins and starting a campaign that the ToE is nothing to do with. Yet if it was simply proven. Of course if would be a part of. The complexity that life cannot arise from dead matter. No matter how many yrs go by is evidence of the need of an intelligence. AKA a designer.

Have you even seen someone design a cell? I never have.But I've seen experiments where cell-like enclosures, complete with membranes, have arisen through entirely natural chemistry.

Almeyda, When you answer the questions in post 49 instead of doing your usual ignoring trick, you'll sound more credible.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Just once I would love to see you logically defend even one of your assertions. Or answer any one of the questions that have been put to you by a half dozen or so different people.Several times you have fallen back onto the old "undisputed" argument. Whether or not something is undisputed or disputed has nothing to do with whether or not it's true. People can dispute the relevance of the fossil record, but that does not make it go away or lessen its worth. Well, yes it does. And this is a very important point and one I'm glad you brought up. The fact that we share so much DNA with bananas proves that both we and bananas shared a common ancestor. And that is one of the strong arguments for evolution. If we suddenly saw something new created, Creationists would win hands down. But until they can show Creation happening, they have no argument. Evolutionists can show evolution happening. Creationists have never been able to show Creation happening. Samo-samo. What is kind? I have never seen a Creationist define kind. They can't, and if they do, they will lose the argument that very day.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'd be interested in that, thank you.

quote:

---

There is no evidence for ape human ancestry. Many of them are either an ape or homosapien. Theres yet to be an undisputed inbetween.

---

On the contrary. Evolutionary theory predicts that as we look at older and older fossils ape characteristics will become more apparent and human characteristics will become less apparent. This is exactly what we see. You have to do better than "is not!".

quote:

---

Fossils cannot be tested to a conclusive age.

---

Nope, they can't. But we can get within a few thousand years for certain fossils, and 10's of thousands for others. Radiometric dating is much more reliable than you have been led to believe.

quote:

---

In fact, the fact that there still there, preserved. Points to a younger age.

---

Not when they are buried under hundreds of feet of rock that could only have formed over millions of years.

quote:

---

DNA similarities dont mean anything. Were similar to bananas. It doesnt mean or prove nothing.

---

Again, a prediction of evolutionary theory is borne out in the fossil and DNA record. According to the fossil record, common ancestory between apes and humans was much more recent than common ancestory between bananas and humans. According to evolutionary theory, we should then be more closely related genetically with apes than with bananas. This is exactly what we see. Why are the fossils in the ground organized by the DNA sequence of living organisms? Only the theory of evolution is able to explain this fact.

quote:

---

Natural selection has never worked to add new information that has been never present at least in observation today.

---

False. Computer simulations plainly show increases in information for systems under random mutation and selection.

quote:

---

However natural selection can work with information already present pointing to reduced information not gained, a mutation.

---

Wrong again. Mutations can alter protein increase or decrease specificity, activity, turnover rate in enzymes. In other words, mutations can create new proteins with new functions. Take the nylC gene in flavobacterium. This enzyme breaks down nylon derivatives which weren't around until the mid 1950's. This enzyme came about because of a mutation, and it is the only known enzyme that acts in this precise way. Read all about it here: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

quote:

---

To this day life has not arisen on its own from dead matter.

---

Except for the donation of an egg from your mother and a sperm from your father, the rest of your body comes from dead matter. You, yourself started as a single cell. So yes, life does come from dead matter and humans do come from single cells. It's not impossible.

quote:

---

Animals have always reproduced after their own kind.

---

How about plants . I have an animal bias myself, don't worry.So, would you agree then that humans and apes having common ancestory is microevolution since they are all within the primate kind? Or that birds and mammals coming from reptiles is also microevolution since they are in the vertebrate kind? The "kind" argument is a pathetic excuse for classifying organisms, and is only used to handwave away anything creationists feel challenges a literal interpretation of Genesis. Creationists don't care what reality is telling them.

because, quite simply, the theory of evolution has NOTHING to do with how life got here, just what happened afterwards, and it developed complexity.it's not a campaign. evolution ONLY says that things change from generation to generation based on a natural selection process. no, this is a system of subsystems. behe himself only deals in the subsystem of the cell, and ene then his "theory" fails.sorry, the cell or anything else with subsystems is not evidence for design.

i considered posting it here once or twice, but it's not particularly great. it's not exactly scientific, more argumentative, because it wasn't for a science class, but an english one.although, i can post just the sources i used, such as the miller debate and behe himself. i think i actually did that in another thread.basically, it'd just be nine pages re-stating the same old argument we have here everyday.

quote:

---

Irrelevant. As long as there are potential explanations other than abiogenesis, & evolution can still occur, then abiogenesis isn't a logically necessary part of evolutionary theory. Life could have existed as long as the universe has, for example, assuming cosmologists got the big bang wrong.

​

Furthermore, evolutionary theory doesn't seek to explain the origins of life, only what happened after it was there. It's not your prerogative to tell biologists what is a part of their theory & what isn't. Or are you saying we can't study atomic theory without firstly rejecting god outright, & assuming the Big Bang? You can't have it both ways. In both cases it is possible to study evolution & sub-atomic particles without knowledge of where they came from. So again, abiogenesis is not a logically irremovable part of evolutionary theory.

---

So if it is not a part of the ToE. Please explain to me biochemical evolution and prebiotic evolution.

quote:

---

To this day life has not arisen on its own from dead matter.

​

And that is one of the strong arguments for evolution. If we suddenly saw something new created, Creationists would win hands down. But until they can show Creation happening, they have no argument. Evolutionists can show evolution happening. Creationists have never been able to show Creation happening.

---

You dont know what your talking about Jar. The fact that life cannot arise from dead matter is proof for creation. Proof that there may be a creator behind it all. If it could happen with natural processes then evolution would be on top. Without it being called the the ToE but the fact of evolution.