75 Theses ~ Science Against Evolution

[David T]

10 Crackpot Theories About Space
10 crackpot theories about space.

I am not going to go through the weirdness of how what is clearly crackpot, is seen as religion. I might say the 10 above crackpot theories of space are science!!!. Creationism is active imagination that really has zero to do with anything. It's not religion, it's certainly not Christian, it's not even good story, just horid reasoning. is all of religion that way? a lot of it yes. all of it no.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And why bacteria still infest superior lifeforms

remaining bacteria after all this time, resisting evolution

the vast periods of stasis are just as telling as the explosive changes- neither follow the slow gradual adaptation model.

If a monthly photocopied office memo remained identical after even just 12 generations, you know it's coming from a master copy, random mutations would degrade it.

It's not impossible that a copying error would actually significantly improve the memo, it's just extremely improbable.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Changes ("improvements") in car design are rooted in two primary sources of pressure: changes in technology, and changes in consumer tastes. Associated with both are changes in regulatory pressures, infrastructure, and economics and the like.

This "theory" of the evolution of cars does not depend on when, where, and how cars were first developed/invented/created--nor on who or what did that--all it describes is the sources of pressure on the appearance and abilities of cars.

Car designs change over time on the basis of those factors.

The theory of biological evolution does not depend on when/how/why/by whom (if anyone) life got started. It is predicated on recognition of the various NATURAL pressures that will select for some traits and against others, in a population of related individuals, once life has started. These pressures include resource availability, mate selection, reproductive strategy, geography, climate and others.

There is no superior 'design' in biology: there are only ADAPTED forms--those that can survive in a given ecosystem at a given point in time, and that leave descendants, which will survive or not, depending on how well or how poorly they are adapted to that future environment.

To keep saying that evolution has a goal, such as a "superior design" for a life form, is NOT science--and frankly, I've never heard anyone but creationists and religious apologists assert that life is trying to become "superior designs."

 

[ChristineM]

remaining bacteria after all this time, resisting evolution

the vast periods of stasis are just as telling as the explosive changes- neither follow the slow gradual adaptation model.

If a monthly photocopied office memo remained identical after even just 12 generations, you know it's coming from a master copy, random mutations would degrade it.

It's not impossible that a copying error would actually significantly improve the memo, it's just extremely improbable.

Had your flu shot this year?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Had your flu shot this year?

No, I've never had one! not sure where the contradiction is either way though

I would think 'believes in evolution'

and 'gets a flu shot every year'

begs the question, what happened to the bacteria? how did they manage to hide from evolution for billions of years?

 

[Subduction Zone]

remaining bacteria after all this time, resisting evolution

the vast periods of stasis are just as telling as the explosive changes- neither follow the slow gradual adaptation model.

If a monthly photocopied office memo remained identical after even just 12 generations, you know it's coming from a master copy, random mutations would degrade it.

It's not impossible that a copying error would actually significantly improve the memo, it's just extremely improbable.

What makes you think that bacteria remaining bacteria is "resisting evolution".

You appear to have a very poor understanding of the concept. You may be able to refute your strawman version of evolution, but you can't come close to refuting the real thing.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I've just come across this creationist website ...it looks very basic so may be old and abandoned but it is useful to help understand the mind of a creationist.

Science Against Evolution Official Home Page

One of the pages ....
Seventy-five Theses
.....is their 75 Theses "We hold these truths to be undeniable."

1. Initially, the Earth was a lifeless planet.
2. There is life on Earth now.
3. At some time in the past, life either originated on Earth, or came to Earth from outer space.
4. Regardless of where or when life originated, it had to originate sometime, somewhere, somehow.
5. Life either originated by purely natural processes, or else some supernatural element must have been involved.
6. Science, as defined by the American public school system, excludes supernatural explanations.
7. Science depends upon the “Scientific Method” for determining truth.
8. The Scientific Method involves testing hypotheses using repeatable experiments.
9. If there is a scientific explanation for the origin of life, it must depend entirely on natural, repeatable processes.
10. If life originated by a natural process under certain specific conditions, it should be possible to create life again under the same conditions.
11. For more than 50 years scientists have tried to find conditions that produce life, without success.
12. Fifty years of failed attempts to create life have raised more questions than answers about how life could have originated naturally.
13. Living things have been observed to die from natural processes, which can be repeated in a laboratory.
14. Life has never been observed to originate through any natural process.
15. “Abiogenesis” is the belief that life can originate from non-living substances through purely natural processes.
16. The theory of evolution depends upon abiogenesis as the starting point.
17. If the theory of abiogenesis is false, then the theory of evolution is false.
18. The American public school system teaches that somehow the first living cell formed naturally and reproduced.
19. There is no known way in which the first living cell could have formed naturally.
20. The first living cell would have needed some mechanism for metabolism.
21. There is no known natural process by which metabolism could originate in a lifeless cell.
22. The first living cell would have to grow and reproduce for life to continue past the first cell’s death.
23. Growth and reproduction require cell division.
24. Cell division is a complex process.
25. There is no known natural process by which cell division could originate by chance.
26. According to the theory of evolution, single-celled life forms evolved into multi-cellular life forms.
27. Multi-cellular life forms consist of an assembly of cells that have different functions.
28. There is no scientific explanation for how a single cell could or would naturally change function.
29. Single-celled organisms have a membrane which allows the cell to exchange some substances (“nutrients” and “waste”, for lack of better terms) with the environment.
30. Not all cells in larger multi-cellular organisms are in contact with the external environment.
31. Larger multi-cellular organisms need some method for the interior cells to exchange nutrients and waste with the external environment.
32. Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including teeth, saliva, throat, stomach, and intestines) for absorbing nutrients from the environment.
33. Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including lungs, intestines, heart, arteries, and veins) for distributing nutrients and oxygen to interior cells.
34. Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including lungs, heart, arteries, veins, kidneys, and bladder) for removing waste from interior cells.
35. There is no satisfactory explanation how complex systems such as these could have originated by any natural process.
36. According to the theory of evolution, an invertebrate life-form evolved into the first vertebrate life-form.
37. Vertebrates have, by definition, a spine containing a nervous system.
38. The nervous system detects stimuli and reacts to them.
39. There is no satisfactory explanation for how the simplest nervous system could have originated by any natural process.
40. According to the theory of evolution, some of the first vertebrates were fish, which have eyes and a brain connected by a nervous system.
41. There is no satisfactory explanation how optical elements (typically including a lens, an iris and light sensors) could have assembled themselves by any natural process.
42. There is no satisfactory explanation how image processing algorithms could have originated in a fish brain by any natural process.
43. If the theory of evolution is true, then every characteristic of every living thing must be the result of a random mutation.
44. Mutations have been observed that increase or decrease the size of some portion (or portions) of a living organism.
45. Mutations have been observed that change the shape of a living organism.
46. Mutations have been observed that duplicate existing features (cows with two heads, flies with extra wings, etc.).
47. No mutation has ever been observed that provides a new function (sight, hearing, smell, lactation, etc.) in a living organism that did not previously have that function.
48. Cross-breeding and genetic engineering can transfer existing functionality from one living organism to another.
49. Cross-breeding cannot explain the origin of any new functionality in the first place.
50. Artificial selection enhances desired characteristics by removing genetic traits that inhibit the desired characteristics.
51. Artificial selection is more efficient than natural selection.
52. There are limits to the amount of change that can be produced by artificial selection.
53. Mutation and artificial selection have not been demonstrated to be sufficient to bring about new life forms from existing ones.
54. Similarity of features is not definite proof of common ancestry.
55. Similarity of features is often observed in objects designed by man.
56. The fact that one individual was born later than another individual died is not proof that the later individual is a biological descendant of the earlier one, especially if they are of different species.
57. Many different human evolutionary trees have been proposed.
58. There is disagreement about hominid lineage because the “evidence” is meager and highly speculative.
59. Darwin was correct when he said, “Any variation which is not inherited is unimportant for us.” 2
60. Acquired characteristics are not inherited because they do not cause any change in the DNA.
61. Explanations for how apelike creatures evolved into humans are fanciful speculations without experimental confirmation.
62. There is no evidence to suggest that offspring of animals that eat cooked food are smarter than offspring of the same species that eat raw food.
63. There is no evidence to suggest that mental exercises performed by parents will increase the brain size of their children.
64. There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will increase the brain size of their children.
65. There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will make it easier for their children to stand upright.
66. Sedimentary layers are formed in modern times by such things as floods, mudslides, and sandstorms.
67. The fossils in sedimentary layers formed in modern times contain the kinds of things living in that location.
68. The concept of geologic ages is based upon the evolutionary assumption that the kinds of fossils buried in sedimentary layers are determined by time rather than location.
69. All sedimentary layers formed in modern times are of the same geologic age, despite the fact that they contain different kinds of fossils.
70. Radiometric dating depends upon assumptions that cannot be verified about the initial concentrations of elements.
71. Radiometric dating of rocks brought back from the Moon is not a reliable method of determining the age of the Earth.
72. “Dark matter” and “dark energy” were postulated to explain why astronomical measurements don’t match predictions of the Big Bang theory.
73. When measurements don’t agree with theoretical predictions, it is generally because the theory was wrong.
74. “We didn’t see it happen, we can’t make it happen again, and we don’t know how it could possibly have happened, but it must have happened somehow!” is never a satisfactory scientific explanation.
75. Public schools should not teach any fanciful speculation that is inconsistent with experimentally verified laws as if it were true.

Perhaps we should got through these and comment on them - creationists please pile in too.

How cute. They try so hard to sound smart.

 

[Baroodi]

O man you don't need to venture into unfathomable depth. look into yourself let the a mazing universe, there is superpower behind it. this superpower knows with brilliant dexterity to do whatever it need without failure. the law that applies to us, doesn't apply to him.

 

[Father Heathen]

remaining bacteria after all this time, resisting evolution

Sigh. Clearly you don't understand how evolution works, nor are you interested in understanding how it works. It has been explained to you ad nauseam, yet you always return to regurgitate the same ridiculous straw men. If you refuse to believe it, or simply find it difficult to understand, that's okay. You have the right to believe whatever you want, but don't try to debate something if you insist on being dishonest and willfully ignorant about it.

You were raised to believe that the bible is infallible, thus the brain is put on autopilot. I get it, but you need to accept that you can't drag the rest of the world down into that bubble.

 

[Father Heathen]

how did they manage to hide from evolution for billions of years?

I don't expect you to absorb this, but for those who might not understand yet have a genuine interest in learning; it's highly probable that there have been countless offshoots that became something else, but because bacteria as they are have adapted to and clearly thrive in their environments, there is no reason that they would've disappeared.

 

[blü 2]

Or the Flying Spaghetti Multiverse, - sure, any of these are less improbable than it simply 'evolving' itself through blind chance

But as explanations go, at least we can agree that blind chance is many orders of magnitude more likely than magic.

At least we know blind chance exists.

 

[corynski]

I've just come across this creationist website ...it looks very basic so may be old and abandoned but it is useful to help understand the mind of a creationist.

Science Against Evolution Official Home Page

One of the pages ....
Seventy-five Theses
.....is their 75 Theses "We hold these truths to be undeniable."

1. Initially, the Earth was a lifeless planet.
2. There is life on Earth now.
3. At some time in the past, life either originated on Earth, or came to Earth from outer space.
4. Regardless of where or when life originated, it had to originate sometime, somewhere, somehow.
5. Life either originated by purely natural processes, or else some supernatural element must have been involved.
6. Science, as defined by the American public school system, excludes supernatural explanations.
7. Science depends upon the “Scientific Method” for determining truth.
8. The Scientific Method involves testing hypotheses using repeatable experiments.
9. If there is a scientific explanation for the origin of life, it must depend entirely on natural, repeatable processes.
10. If life originated by a natural process under certain specific conditions, it should be possible to create life again under the same conditions.
11. For more than 50 years scientists have tried to find conditions that produce life, without success.
12. Fifty years of failed attempts to create life have raised more questions than answers about how life could have originated naturally.
13. Living things have been observed to die from natural processes, which can be repeated in a laboratory.
14. Life has never been observed to originate through any natural process.
15. “Abiogenesis” is the belief that life can originate from non-living substances through purely natural processes.
16. The theory of evolution depends upon abiogenesis as the starting point.
17. If the theory of abiogenesis is false, then the theory of evolution is false.
18. The American public school system teaches that somehow the first living cell formed naturally and reproduced.
19. There is no known way in which the first living cell could have formed naturally.
20. The first living cell would have needed some mechanism for metabolism.
21. There is no known natural process by which metabolism could originate in a lifeless cell.
22. The first living cell would have to grow and reproduce for life to continue past the first cell’s death.
23. Growth and reproduction require cell division.
24. Cell division is a complex process.
25. There is no known natural process by which cell division could originate by chance.
26. According to the theory of evolution, single-celled life forms evolved into multi-cellular life forms.
27. Multi-cellular life forms consist of an assembly of cells that have different functions.
28. There is no scientific explanation for how a single cell could or would naturally change function.
29. Single-celled organisms have a membrane which allows the cell to exchange some substances (“nutrients” and “waste”, for lack of better terms) with the environment.
30. Not all cells in larger multi-cellular organisms are in contact with the external environment.
31. Larger multi-cellular organisms need some method for the interior cells to exchange nutrients and waste with the external environment.
32. Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including teeth, saliva, throat, stomach, and intestines) for absorbing nutrients from the environment.
33. Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including lungs, intestines, heart, arteries, and veins) for distributing nutrients and oxygen to interior cells.
34. Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including lungs, heart, arteries, veins, kidneys, and bladder) for removing waste from interior cells.
35. There is no satisfactory explanation how complex systems such as these could have originated by any natural process.
36. According to the theory of evolution, an invertebrate life-form evolved into the first vertebrate life-form.
37. Vertebrates have, by definition, a spine containing a nervous system.
38. The nervous system detects stimuli and reacts to them.
39. There is no satisfactory explanation for how the simplest nervous system could have originated by any natural process.
40. According to the theory of evolution, some of the first vertebrates were fish, which have eyes and a brain connected by a nervous system.
41. There is no satisfactory explanation how optical elements (typically including a lens, an iris and light sensors) could have assembled themselves by any natural process.
42. There is no satisfactory explanation how image processing algorithms could have originated in a fish brain by any natural process.
43. If the theory of evolution is true, then every characteristic of every living thing must be the result of a random mutation.
44. Mutations have been observed that increase or decrease the size of some portion (or portions) of a living organism.
45. Mutations have been observed that change the shape of a living organism.
46. Mutations have been observed that duplicate existing features (cows with two heads, flies with extra wings, etc.).
47. No mutation has ever been observed that provides a new function (sight, hearing, smell, lactation, etc.) in a living organism that did not previously have that function.
48. Cross-breeding and genetic engineering can transfer existing functionality from one living organism to another.
49. Cross-breeding cannot explain the origin of any new functionality in the first place.
50. Artificial selection enhances desired characteristics by removing genetic traits that inhibit the desired characteristics.
51. Artificial selection is more efficient than natural selection.
52. There are limits to the amount of change that can be produced by artificial selection.
53. Mutation and artificial selection have not been demonstrated to be sufficient to bring about new life forms from existing ones.
54. Similarity of features is not definite proof of common ancestry.
55. Similarity of features is often observed in objects designed by man.
56. The fact that one individual was born later than another individual died is not proof that the later individual is a biological descendant of the earlier one, especially if they are of different species.
57. Many different human evolutionary trees have been proposed.
58. There is disagreement about hominid lineage because the “evidence” is meager and highly speculative.
59. Darwin was correct when he said, “Any variation which is not inherited is unimportant for us.” 2
60. Acquired characteristics are not inherited because they do not cause any change in the DNA.
61. Explanations for how apelike creatures evolved into humans are fanciful speculations without experimental confirmation.
62. There is no evidence to suggest that offspring of animals that eat cooked food are smarter than offspring of the same species that eat raw food.
63. There is no evidence to suggest that mental exercises performed by parents will increase the brain size of their children.
64. There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will increase the brain size of their children.
65. There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will make it easier for their children to stand upright.
66. Sedimentary layers are formed in modern times by such things as floods, mudslides, and sandstorms.
67. The fossils in sedimentary layers formed in modern times contain the kinds of things living in that location.
68. The concept of geologic ages is based upon the evolutionary assumption that the kinds of fossils buried in sedimentary layers are determined by time rather than location.
69. All sedimentary layers formed in modern times are of the same geologic age, despite the fact that they contain different kinds of fossils.
70. Radiometric dating depends upon assumptions that cannot be verified about the initial concentrations of elements.
71. Radiometric dating of rocks brought back from the Moon is not a reliable method of determining the age of the Earth.
72. “Dark matter” and “dark energy” were postulated to explain why astronomical measurements don’t match predictions of the Big Bang theory.
73. When measurements don’t agree with theoretical predictions, it is generally because the theory was wrong.
74. “We didn’t see it happen, we can’t make it happen again, and we don’t know how it could possibly have happened, but it must have happened somehow!” is never a satisfactory scientific explanation.
75. Public schools should not teach any fanciful speculation that is inconsistent with experimentally verified laws as if it were true.

Perhaps we should got through these and comment on them - creationists please pile in too.

Evolution is both a theory and a fact. Let's say the theory is weak, but the fossil record seems to cover the ground to my mind.

 

[blü 2]

Science Against Evolution Official Home Page
Seventy-five Theses

Some of these are even more eyecatching than others:

16. The theory of evolution depends upon abiogenesis as the starting point.
​

So, when you think about it, does any other hypothesis about living things.

17. If the theory of abiogenesis is false, then the theory of evolution is false.
​

Creation of life by magic would be abiogenesis. What's this clown talking about?

And evolution would work equally well for protolife created by magic as for protolife arising from natural causes.

21. There is no known natural process by which metabolism could originate in a lifeless cell.
​

No presently known natural process has yet been described. But the advances to date have been remarkable. Subduction Zone recently drew attention to >this SciAm article< where among many interesting things you can read how two scientists :

eventually produced two ribozymes that could replicate one another ad infinitum as long as they were supplied with sufficient nucleotides. Not only can these naked RNA molecules reproduce, they can also mutate and evolve​

How are the Creationists getting on with their exploration of magical answers to the question? Any promising results yet?

41. There is no satisfactory explanation how optical elements (typically including a lens, an iris and light sensors) could have assembled themselves by any natural process.
​

Our friend Guy Threepwood recently trotted that one out. I flicked him a link to a Wikipedia article on exactly how it's done (and how the eye has evolved independently on a number of occasions).

43. If the theory of evolution is true, then every characteristic of every living thing must be the result of a random mutation.​

Natural selection isn't random mutation. That's just silly.

51. Artificial selection is more efficient than natural selection.
​

Efficient in terms of what? Arriving at a selected point? Nature has no selected point.

54. Similarity of features is not definite proof of common ancestry.
​

Try similarity of genetics.

And on

and on

and on

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some of these are even more eyecatching than others:

16. The theory of evolution depends upon abiogenesis as the starting point.
​

So, when you think about it, does any other hypothesis about living things.

17. If the theory of abiogenesis is false, then the theory of evolution is false.
​

Creation of life by magic would be abiogenesis. What's this clown talking about?

And evolution would work equally well for protolife created by magic as for protolife arising from natural causes.

21. There is no known natural process by which metabolism could originate in a lifeless cell.
​

No presently known natural process has yet been described. But the advances to date have been remarkable. Subduction Zone recently drew attention to >this SciAm article< where among many interesting things you can read how two scientists :

eventually produced two ribozymes that could replicate one another ad infinitum as long as they were supplied with sufficient nucleotides. Not only can these naked RNA molecules reproduce, they can also mutate and evolve​

How are the Creationists getting on with their exploration of magical answers to the question? Any promising results yet?

41. There is no satisfactory explanation how optical elements (typically including a lens, an iris and light sensors) could have assembled themselves by any natural process.
​

Our friend Guy Threepwood recently trotted that one out. I flicked him a link to a Wikipedia article on exactly how it's done (and how the eye has evolved independently on a number of occasions).

43. If the theory of evolution is true, then every characteristic of every living thing must be the result of a random mutation.​

Natural selection isn't random mutation. That's just silly.

51. Artificial selection is more efficient than natural selection.
​

Efficient in terms of what? Arriving at a selected point? Nature has no selected point.

54. Similarity of features is not definite proof of common ancestry.
​

Try similarity of genetics.

And on

and on

and on

If you want to see how the work on abiogenesis has progressed here is a site that you may want to check out:

Szostak Lab: Home

Jack Szostak is a Nobel Prize winner and abiogenesis is one of his main fields of study.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

The idea that Abraham's God is smart enough to design life as we know it is laughable.

 

[Altfish]

And so which comes first? what has to happen before the superior design can be selected for? why skip over that part?


Natural selection goes entirely without saying, nobody debates that a significantly superior design will out perform an inferior one, that's why we still have Ford Mustangs but not Pintos

How you introduce that superior design in the first place, is obviously the crux of the matter,


which Darwinists gloss over entirely- with the theory of 'Natural selection'

leaving out the subheading "of superior designs that conveniently, spontaneously appeared by pure blind chance"


as if that is the part that goes without saying, it isn't.

You really don't understand it do you.

Firstly though, lets stop these silly car analogies, cars do not breed.

You say "nobody debates that a significantly superior design will out perform an inferior one" yes we do. That is natural selection. So, for example, a giraffe is born with a longer neck than her siblings, she can reach higher leaves, that is an advantage and in times of famine she may be one of the few survivors and her genes will be passed on. Whereas the one with the shorter neck may well have starved.

Try reading science books instead of Answers in Genesis

 

[LuisDantas]

Really sad that people who have access to today's culture sometimes take such a list as the OP's seriously.

 

[ChristineM]

No, I've never had one! not sure where the contradiction is either way though

I would think 'believes in evolution'

and 'gets a flu shot every year'

begs the question, what happened to the bacteria? how did they manage to hide from evolution for billions of years?

Actually its a virus but the same applies to bacteria

They don't hide, they evolve into new strains, hence the need for regular inoculations.

Also why there is such concern in the medical fraternity about newly evolved antibiotic resistant bacteria such as mrsa.

 

[Misunderstood]

When creationists who follow this line of argumentation (and we don't all follow this line of argumentation, by the by) can define for me what precisely "supernatural" is and how that is meaningfully different from "natural" I might start to understand the argument. I have always found the term "supernatural" to be perplexing and nonsensical. It is very telling that the argumentation presented never actually defines what "supernatural" is.

I would say this defines it pretty well:

the definition of supernatural

adjective
1.
of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2.
of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.
3.
of a superlative degree; preternatural:
a missile of supernatural speed.
4.
of, relating to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.
noun
5.
a being, place, object, occurrence, etc., considered as supernatural or of supernatural origin; that which is supernatural, or outside the natural order.
6.
behavior supposedly caused by the intervention of supernatural beings.
7.
direct influence or action of a deity on earthly affairs.
8.
the supernatural.

1. supernatural beings, behavior, and occurrences collectively.
2. supernatural forces and the supernatural plane of existence:
   a deep fear of the supernatural.

 

[Altfish]

10 Crackpot Theories About Space
10 crackpot theories about space.

I am not going to go through the weirdness of how what is clearly crackpot, is seen as religion. I might say the 10 above crackpot theories of space are science!!!. Creationism is active imagination that really has zero to do with anything. It's not religion, it's certainly not Christian, it's not even good story, just horid reasoning. is all of religion that way? a lot of it yes. all of it no.

I think you'll find that none of them are actually scientific theories. I doubt they are even hypothesis, probably some tabloid articles that got published in the name of science reporting.