75 Theses ~ Science Against Evolution

[Muslim-UK]

Theistic evolutionists might disagree with theistic creationists on this point.

Yes, they might, but I highly doubt it.

 

[DavidFirth]

1. Initially, the Earth was a lifeless planet.

• Probably, but do we know that for sure?

2. There is life on Earth now.

• Hard to argue with

3. At some time in the past, life either originated on Earth, or came to Earth from outer space.

• Yes, there may be other possibilities, but those are the most obvious

4. Regardless of where or when life originated, it had to originate sometime, somewhere, somehow.

• OK, I'll buy that

5. Life either originated by purely natural processes, or else some supernatural element must have been involved.

• The origin of life is still debated, abiogenesis is currently the best hypothesis. Ah! I wondered where god would enter the discussion.

Abiogenesis is laughably stupid. How a person can believe RNA just threw itself together and became alive is truly a mystery.


"I found this watch on the field today."
"Gee, I wonder how many millions of years it took for that watch to have evolved naturally?"
"I don't know, Bob, but it must have happened that way since we know there is no Creator."
"Just think, it must have taken billions of years for life to evolve since it is much more complicated than this watch."

 

[Muslim-UK]

Nothing evolves through Blind Chance - please educate yourself about evolution before making ignorant posts.

So great, DNA didn't come about by blind chance. Given how complex it is, it would be silly to propose blind random chance. How does the theory of evolution explain the origins of DNA? A spoonful of which, incidentally contains more information than all the books found in the World. Mind boggling stuff.

 

[Skwim]

Abiogenesis is laughably stupid. How a person can believe RNA just threw itself together and became alive is truly a mystery.

Obviously, which is why no one believes it. The only people asserting such stupidity are creationists who think it's an argument against abiogenesis, and often regard abiogenesis as germane to evolution. But ya gotta love creationists and their desperate attempts to save creationism by any means possible. Too bad they can't make a case for it on its own grounds, but have to resort to disparaging evolution to do so. As if creationism would then win by default. *chuckle,* *chuckle.*

.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Nothing evolves through Blind Chance - please educate yourself about evolution before making ignorant posts.

so random mutations are not really random?

 

[savagewind]

Where do the writers of this list think babies come from?

I think it means life from non-life has never been observed.

 

[Jumi]

Yes, they might, but I highly doubt it.

Do you think simple things are also proof of creation or just complex things? I see a lot of creationists use both as to why they believe things are created. It seems like complexity and simplicity aren't really criteria for people who believe both are "proof".

 

[Jumi]

so random mutations are not really random?

I think he means natural selection.

 

[Muslim-UK]

Do you think simple things are also proof of creation or just complex things? I see a lot of creationists use both as to why they believe things are created. It seems like complexity and simplicity aren't really criteria for people who believe both are "proof".

Give an example of a simple thing that you had in mind.

 

[Jumi]

Give an example of a simple thing that you had in mind.

Such as fibonacci sequence in nature.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I think he means natural selection.

of what?

 

[Muslim-UK]

Such as fibonacci sequence in nature.

"THE FIBONACCI SEQUENCE, SPIRALS AND THE GOLDEN MEAN. TheFibonacci sequence exhibits a certain numerical pattern which originated as the answer to an exercise in the first ever high school algebra text. This pattern turned out to have an interest and importance far beyond what its creator imagined."

Sounds quite complicated to me, but if this is classed as simple and evidence of a Designer, then yes, clearly simple as well as complex things can both be pointed to in making a case for a Supreme Designer.

 

[ChristineM]

At a molecular level we see a clear signature in the DNA contained within all living cells. Theists say, it is GOD who is responsible for this mind boggling complexity contained within DNA. Hope that helps.

DNA is not complex, it is made up of 4 simple nitrogen based molecules bound to a sugar and a phosphate molecule. However there is a lot of it. Quantity is not complexity

 

[ChristineM]

That's a very valid point. My question in response would be, what evidence do you have to suggest it was the FSM?

Can i fire that right back at you? What evidence do you have to suggest it was god?

 

[Altfish]

That's a very valid point. My question in response would be, what evidence do you have to suggest it was the FSM?

Exactly what my question would be to someone who claimed it was any god.

 

[Altfish]

Abiogenesis is laughably stupid. How a person can believe RNA just threw itself together and became alive is truly a mystery.


"I found this watch on the field today."
"Gee, I wonder how many millions of years it took for that watch to have evolved naturally?"
"I don't know, Bob, but it must have happened that way since we know there is no Creator."
"Just think, it must have taken billions of years for life to evolve since it is much more complicated than this watch."

I find the fact that people can take a stone age book literally equally stupid.
At least I have evidence on my side and it makes imminent sense.. I also don't find millions/billions of years unbelievable. I find "God did it" laughably stupid.
When I see watches breeding I will accept the analogy.

 

[Altfish]

So great, DNA didn't come about by blind chance. Given how complex it is, it would be silly to propose blind random chance. How does the theory of evolution explain the origins of DNA? A spoonful of which, incidentally contains more information than all the books found in the World. Mind boggling stuff.

Alternatively try this one....

 

[Altfish]

so random mutations are not really random?

Yes, but their chances of survival and being passed on depend on the other bit of evolution, natural selection. Bad mutations die out, useful ones are adopted and passed on.
So creationists throw about the phrase 'random chance' but always miss out the important second element.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes, but their chances of survival and being passed on depend on the other bit of evolution, natural selection. Bad mutations die out, useful ones are adopted and passed on.
So creationists throw about the phrase 'random chance' but always miss out the important second element.

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.

 

[ChristineM]

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.

And why bacteria still infest superior lifeforms