Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution?

I see, my mistake entirely.You're an idiot.

You won't resolve your cognitive dissonances by calling me an idiot. Cognitive dissonance is the mental stress experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs. Given the fact that ToE contradicts reality on every instance of observation I know that evolutionists have these contradictory beliefs which makes them become psychologically uncomfortable, and then they insult people. But the problem is not other people. The problem is the state of mind in which evolutionists think something to be the case, without there being empirical evidence to prove it. Hence to resolve your mental stress you must free yourself out of arms of ToE. Insulting people won't help you.

Reproduction involves two generations, the producer(s) and the product. The product is different from the individual producers. That is what drives evolution.

Maybe you should actually learn about the TOE before you try to attack it. What you are attacking is not the TOE. I have no idea what it is you are attacking. Please show some source that agrees with what you think the TOE is.

Double post. Joys of smartphonesEdited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

I am not attacking the ToE in the same way as I am not attacking the flat Earth theory if I say that the Earth is round. In saying this I am simply stating the observation that the Earth is round and I don't care about the mental BS that individuals from modern flat Earth societies produced in the form of their flat Earth theory or whatever.Likewise, regarding evolution, I am simply stating the observation that there hasn't been enough resources to extract bio-functionality from matter and that the maintenance and reproduction apparatus of an organisam cannot exist in a simpler mode. So I don't care about the ToE, I am not attacking its infinite number of presuppositions. I am simply stating the fact that evolutionary processes cannot turn simple organisms into more complex organisms. The ToE in that regard, is just an atheistic rationalization, complex defence mechanism for denying the obvious - that living things are produced by an intelligent cause. And I don't care about atheistic rationalizations, so no - I am not attacking the ToE.

And yet, there is a large diversity of species.You can say all you want, meanwhile scientists will continue to employ the Theory of Evolution to solve problems and learn new stuff. It simply works as an explanation despite your erroneous attempts to say it doesn't.Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution.With evolution, practically everything does make sense. And the theory works. So there's that. You could've told us that in the beginning...So anyways, to the question of your thread:"Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution?"The answer is: Yes, the argument has been disproved in multiple ways by a number of people.

This would only be the case if changes consisted solely in adding new things on top; while everything that was already there remains the same.If you turned off the internet then the company I work for would stop working. Everything that we do, every work process we have in place, every system that we use is reliant on a functional internet.It would be silly from this to conclude that we always had the internet. Our company predates the internet, and there are people old enough to remember that. Since the internet became available, however, various organisational and technological changes have happened in our company; and they have all happened in an internet-capable environment. Therefore we've built a whole structure which is reliant on the internet, and which ceases to function without it.I hope the analogy is clear.

Fixed it for you. You need to learn what the word "fact" means.

The meaning behind this word is pretty simple - something known by actual experience or observation. Share of bio-functionality in matter is known by actual experience or observation. The maximum number of resources available to extract this bio-functionality is known by actual experience or observation. The inability of an organism to live or to pass on its genes to the next generation, if we deform or reduce its maintenance or reproduction apparatus, is also known by actual experience or observation.On the other hand, claims like: "evolution starts with pre-existing materials and modifies them", as a response to the fact of small share of bio-functionality in matter, is just an ambiguous mental construct totally irrelevant to the issue in question, because every process in nature starts with pre-existing materials and modifies them - raining, wind blowing, radiation, nuclear fission, chemical reaction... So, what does the 'modification of pre-existing materials' has to do with the lack of resources available to extract bio-functionality from matter? Nothing. This is just an empty mental construct, fiction, an excuse for beliefs that are totally the opposite of what the actual experience or observation shows.So, you can play your rhetorical games all you want, but facts will stay facts and fiction will stay fiction.

You have obviously convinced yourself that you have disproved evolution. Meanwhile scientists will continue to make discoveries by applying evolutionary theory regardless of your claims. The gold standard test of a scientific theory is prediction leading to discovery. It's all about discoveries.How do scientists make discoveries relating to the prehistoric past? Do you think archaeologists just start randomly digging around willy nilly without any idea why?Here is a shining example of an evolutionary discovery pertaining to the prehistoric past. The prediction and discovery of Tiktaalik

quote:

---

What is especially cool about Tiktaalik is that the researchers, Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin and Farish A. Jenkins, predicted that they would discover something like Tiktaalik. These paleontologists made the prediction that such a transitional form must exist in order to bridge the gap between fish and amphibians. Even more, they predicted that such a species should exist in the late Devonian period, about 375 million years ago.

​

So they spent several years digging through the earth on Ellesmere Island in Northern Canada, because geological and paleontological evidence suggested that exposed strata there was from the late Devonian. They predicted that, according to evolutionary theory, at this time in history a creature should have existed that was morphologically transitional between fish and amphibians. They found Tiktaalik - a fishopod, beautifully transitional between fish and amphibians.

---

So evolutionary theory leads to discoveries.What discoveries have you made by applying your bio-functionality idea? If the answer to that question is "none" then I'm afraid that there really is no contest here.

Scientists make discoveries by applying their five senses and capacity to reason, while motivation or effort of an individual is what leads to discoveries. The ToE on the other hand is just a naive opinion, that by changing positions of molecules in the bacteria like creature, you can ultimately end up with a heart, liver, eye, kidney, brain, ear, etc., which has been disproven time and time again exactly because scientists made discoveries by applying their five senses and capacity to reason. Tying this naive opinion to science and discoveries is really tragicomical.

You keep making really stupid statements and as with all Creationists never provide the evidence to support your absurdities.Where is there any evidence that disproves evolution? There sure has not been any presented in this thread.

The theory of evolution has successfully led to discoveries. I have given you a specific example of such.Other than your own somewhat premature conclusion that evolution has been disproven, what has your little idea led to? I will tell you - Nothing. Firstly - Changing positions of molecules....?Secondly - You are aware that the development from zygote to fully formed body comprised of heart, liver, kidney, brain etc. does occur in the womb, has been observed and that you would not be here but for that fact.How does your idea of molecular arrangement and the statistical likelihood of specific arrangements explain that?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well I am still waiting for a proper response to my first argument that talks about the lack of resources. All your responses were either red herrings or can be boiled down to this statement: "Evolution does not start from scratch but it builds on what already exists."This statement is of course deeply flawed since it neglects one critical aspect of biological reality, and that is: in the context of new structural or environmental niches, the pre-existing functional bio-structures are - junk. Yes, pre-existing function is junk in the same way as functional traction battery is junk in the context of petrol car engine or in the same way as semantically correct word "technology" is junk in the context of the question "What day is today? In we use the last analogy in the evolutionary context , and we say that the question "What day is today? is newly emerged environmental niche, then functional protein fold - "technology" is equally junk as this: "fdjkdjfkjdkeweo". "Junk" is simply anything that is regarded as worthless, meaningless, or nonfunctional in some context. Traction battery is worthless in the context of petrol car engine while "technology" and "fdjkdjfkjdkeweo" are worthless in the context of the question "What day is today?, Likewise, pre-existing functional bio-structures are worthless in the context of new structural or environmental niches. So, in order to bulid new organs, protein folds, metabolic pathways, ... evolution must start from scratch and the presupposition of the ToE that it does not, is flawed, the same as most of its presuppositions.Regarding my second argument, that talks about the structural and temporal intradependence of bio-structures, it was ignored completely on this thread. Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.