Make these ads go away.
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 381 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 52 102 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 3801

Thread: Science Disproves Evolution

  1. #11
    Proudly humble
    is Lost in the Ozone, again.
     
    I am:
    Cool
     
    LarsMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    usually on the road to somewhere.
    Posts
    9,591
    Local Date
    12-11-2017
    Local Time
    09:42 PM
    Points
    36,695
    Gifts Beer Balloons Gift Car Beer

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    It would seem that Life is no so narrow, after all.
    LINK
    "The trouble with people isn't that they don't know, but that they know so much that ain't so."
    - Anonymous

  2. #12
    anomaly
    is full of status
     
    I am:
    Awesome
     

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    16,772
    Local Date
    12-11-2017
    Local Time
    07:42 PM
    Points
    14,934
    Gifts Cocktail

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    They've just found an organism that thrives in conditions thought to be impossible for life to survive so the search for aliens is taking on new parameters.

    CTV British Columbia - Microbe that feeds off arsenic alters search for life - CTV News

  3. #13
    anomaly
    is full of status
     
    I am:
    Awesome
     

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    16,772
    Local Date
    12-11-2017
    Local Time
    07:42 PM
    Points
    14,934
    Gifts Cocktail

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by LarsMac View Post
    It would seem that Life is no so narrow, after all.
    LINK
    Quote Originally Posted by koan View Post
    They've just found an organism that thrives in conditions thought to be impossible for life to survive so the search for aliens is taking on new parameters.

    CTV British Columbia - Microbe that feeds off arsenic alters search for life - CTV News
    If I'd clicked Lars' link or he'd summarized it, I'd have noticed it's the same thing.

    Jinx!

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    is poking the sun
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    yaaarrrgg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,210
    Local Date
    12-11-2017
    Local Time
    09:42 PM
    Points
    638

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by Pahu View Post

    Eighteen Factors Disproving Evolution

    Evolution flunks the science test

    Irreducible complexity——Biochemists and microbiologists have discovered that the various components of every living creature in the world are so complicated and interrelated, that it could not function without every one of them. There is no way that some of the parts could have been added later.

    Instantaneous complexity——Each entire living creature had to be totally assembled instantly, in order for it to begin living. If this was not done, parts would decay before other parts were made. All aspects had to be there together, all at once.

    Mathematically impossible——Mathematicians have found that the likelihood of DNA, enzymes, amino acids, and proteins being randomly assembled by the chance methods offered by evolutionary theory is impossible.


    SCIENCE VS EVOLUTION 28
    If you think something intelligent created the complexity in the Universe, you might consider what mechanism would to sustain that kind of intelligence. God might need at least one neuron (or equivalent) for every atom in the Universe to keep track of all these things. So, the mind of God is even more complex than the thing you are trying to explain. Seems this route of explanation is a not very fruitful. You've only created a bigger question than the one you tried to answer.

  5. #15
    anomaly
    is full of status
     
    I am:
    Awesome
     

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    16,772
    Local Date
    12-11-2017
    Local Time
    07:42 PM
    Points
    14,934
    Gifts Cocktail

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    All the existing arguments have been proven faulty logic. Let us know if you find something new.

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    is needing a vacation...
     
    I am:
    Tired
     
    Saint_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The High Rockies
    Posts
    3,070
    Local Date
    12-11-2017
    Local Time
    07:42 PM
    Points
    11,340
    Gifts Beer Burger Car Beer

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Yeah Pahu, you look out your window to a huge city of houses. Well it only stands to reason that there's only life in one house right?

    Pfft.

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    is Alive
     
    I am:
    Sad
     
    OpenMind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    8,602
    Local Date
    12-12-2017
    Local Time
    03:42 AM
    Points
    84
    Gifts Beer Message in a Bottle Burger Beer

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    I looked, but I could not find a single qualification for any of the statements made in the OP.

    However, how about some commonly known facts. Where else in this universe is there life? The chances of life evolving are improbable, but not impossible.
    Furthermore, once the basic form of life evolves, like the formation of crystals, higher life forms are very probable.
    It isn't necessary that there is a god to make these things possible. In fact, the existence of a god just complicates things further. It is enough to grapple with the concept of infinity without having to place a god within this concept as well.
    The idea of gods are socially conceived concepts and, as such, only serve the purpose to control societies. Babies are not born with any preconceived notions of deities and only become aware of such through other people. They are, however, usually born with healthy appetites and less savoury functions. But they know nothing about food either.

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,657
    Local Date
    12-11-2017
    Local Time
    09:42 PM
    Points
    6,232

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by OpenMind View Post
    I looked, but I could not find a single qualification for any of the statements made in the OP.

    However, how about some commonly known facts. Where else in this universe is there life? The chances of life evolving are improbable, but not impossible.
    Furthermore, once the basic form of life evolves, like the formation of crystals, higher life forms are very probable.
    It isn't necessary that there is a god to make these things possible. In fact, the existence of a god just complicates things further. It is enough to grapple with the concept of infinity without having to place a god within this concept as well.
    The idea of gods are socially conceived concepts and, as such, only serve the purpose to control societies. Babies are not born with any preconceived notions of deities and only become aware of such through other people. They are, however, usually born with healthy appetites and less savoury functions. But they know nothing about food either.
    All living things (down to even a single-celled organism) are highly complex and organized—each component in its proper place and functioning according to its instructions to keep the organism going. They don’t just “happen” in nature—the notion of spontaneous generation was long ago and often disproven [Redi (1688), Spallanzani (1780), Pasteur (1860), and Virchow (1858)], establishing the Law of Biogenesis, which remains confirmed in that man has never observed life coming from anything but life itself, which is not observed to exist at all without all of the above described factors in place in some form.

    On the other hand, simple “order” such as that found in a snowflake or a crystal, for example, is exceedingly trivial, when compared to the increase in information, organization or complexity that would be required for either spontaneous generation (the beginning of biological evolution), or any form of progressive macro-evolution itself. The formation of molecules or atoms into geometric patterns such as snowflakes or crystals reflects movement towards equilibrium—a lower energy level, and a more stable arrangement of the molecules or atoms into simple, uniform, repeating structural patterns with minimal complexity, and no function. Living things, on the other hand, do not arrive at and maintain their high levels of order, organization, and complexity in order to achieve thermodynamic equilibrium, but are in fact maintaining far from equilibrium conditions in order to arrive at and maintain those levels.

    Thus, crystals are not examples of matter forming itself into more organized or more complex structures or systems even remotely parallel to those inherent in living organisms, even though they may certainly reflect “order” in the form of patterns (the very structure of which is both enabled and limited by the molecules which comprise them), and they certainly cannot serve realistically as “proof” that life can therefore create itself.

    To so erroneously equate mere passive “order” of molecules as they enter a state of energy equilibrium (e.g., the formation of crystals) with a spontaneous, self-induced increase in “organized complexity” (as demanded by evolutionary theory for both the beginning and development of life—and as prohibited by the 2nd law), is to truly misunderstand the 2nd law AND evolution. This seems to be exactly what Isaak has done.

    Jeffrey Wicken (an evolutionist) does recognize the difference, however, having described it this way:

    “‘Organized’ systems are to be carefully distinguished from ‘ordered’ systems. Neither kind of system is ‘random,’ but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an external ‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content ... Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic ‘order.’” [Jeffrey S. Wicken, “The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 77 (April 1979), p. 349]

    Nobel Prize winner Ilya Prigogine also has no problem defining the difference, even acknowledging the extreme unlikelihood that the requisite complexity for life could arise from non-life:

    “The point is that in a non-isolated [open] system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small.” [I. Prigogine, G. Nicolas and A. Babloyants, Physics Today 25(11):23 (1972)]

    Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen make the same clear distinction:

    “As ice forms, energy (80 calories/gm) is liberated to the surroundings... The entropy change is negative because the thermal configuration entropy (or disorder) of water is greater than that of ice, which is a highly ordered crystal... It has often been argued by analogy to water crystallizing to ice that simple monomers may polymerize into complex molecules such as protein and DNA. The analogy is clearly inappropriate, however... The atomic bonding forces draw water molecules into an orderly crystalline array when the thermal agitation (or entropy driving force) is made sufficiently small by lowering the temperature. Organic monomers such as amino acids resist combining at all at any temperature, however, much less in some orderly arrangement.” [C.B. Thaxton, W.L. Bradley, and R.L. Olsen, “The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories,” Philosophical Library, New York, 1984, pp. 119-120.]

    Isaak asks, “If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?” By now it should be clear to any objective reader that Isaak’s logic is faulty:
    his assumption that “order from disorder” is “ubiquitous in nature” is an error

    life’s “order” (better described as “organized complexity”) is possible only because of life’s inherent information and energy conversion mechanisms

    the “order” found in non-living natural structures is not simply due to an unaided decrease in entropy, but to a decrease in molecular or atomic energy level, due to external factors (usually temperature and the existing molecular structure of the elements involved).

    - Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution -
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    Cool
     

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    9,341
    Local Date
    12-11-2017
    Local Time
    09:42 PM
    Points
    28,964
    Gifts Kitten

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Again, Pahu, you are offering nothing except religious right wing propaganda.

    If I show you scientific research which contradicts anything you've offered here, will you admit it to be valid?

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    This user has no status.
     
    I am:
    ----
     
    Pahu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,657
    Local Date
    12-11-2017
    Local Time
    09:42 PM
    Points
    6,232

    Re: Science Disproves Evolution

    Register to remove this ad.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ahso! View Post
    Again, Pahu, you are offering nothing except religious right wing propaganda.

    If I show you scientific research which contradicts anything you've offered here, will you admit it to be valid?
    Sure. If I show you scientific facts disproving evolution, will you admit them to be valid?
    Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 381 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 52 102 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Evolution
    By spot in forum Science
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-11-2008, 05:12 PM
  2. Normal Science is Lamp-Post Science
    By coberst in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-12-2008, 01:43 PM
  3. Evolution
    By SnoozeControl in forum People
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-14-2006, 03:48 PM
  4. Evolution
    By SnoozeControl in forum Just For The Fun Of It
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-26-2006, 09:39 PM
  5. Did you know that evolution....
    By metalstorm in forum Did You Know?
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-28-2004, 06:28 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.5.2