Probably one of the best arguments against evolution is information. And by information I am really talking about the genetic makeup of living organisms, DNA. Evolutionists have several problems with this issue.
First, this initial piece of information had to come from somewhere since it does not naturally occur in matter. So where did it come from? They also have to explain where the mechanism to read this initial piece of genetic information came from. Without this mechanism it could not reproduce exact replicas of itself with no errors. It could not read what was there. It would basically be like having millions of letters, but no language to read them.
Second, they have to explain how such complex groups of information randomly came together to create all types of plants and animals. To put this into perspective, the simplest cells have around 1 trillion bits, or about 100 million pages of an encyclopedia. So basically an evolutionist is telling you that over billions of years (which is untrue itself) these pieces of information have by chance randomly come together to create all forms of plants and animals. In my short lifetime, that is probably one of the most absurd things I have ever heard, but people actually believe it. Mainly because they refuse to believe in God and in the Bible and mis-interpret data based upon these presumptions.
But the problem with information does not stop with the random configuration theory of evolution. The problem also exists with the fact that the genetic code for one structure is completely different than the genetic code for another structure. For example our skin and a reptiles scales. The mechanisms in us reproduces exact replicas of skin cells and do not have the information required to make a scale. Even taking a look at natural selection, genetics show that it is not new genetic data but instead is just a slight re-arrangement of the same data.
So in the end, the Bible once again explains something that evolutionists can simply throw random theories at.
{ 15 comments }
Probably one of the worst arguments creationist ever made-up.
First, evolutionary explains the “diversity” of life not the “origin”. Saying its a problem for evolution is like saying the theory of gravity has a problem because it doesn’t explain the origin of the universe.
Since you brought it up though in fact self-replicating structures do exist in nature. Just like DNA the mechanism for replication is nothing more then chemistry. Anything that replicates with variation will evolve. The answer to where did life come from is counter intuitive because the answer is it didn’t come from anywhere. Life is defined by our arbitrary concepts, but in the end there is just matter and what it is doing. So our best explanation right now is that we are complex replicating structures that originated from simple replicating structures. How simple? Molecule simple.
Now back to the information argument. I’d always relish in the fact that anytime this argument which is old as sin is brought up the person making it neglects to mention what “information” actually is in genetic terms. Often they will make reference to how different our “information” is from something else, but in reality all that is difference is the sequencing. There is a reason why its called the genetic “code” because it is a code or a language, which ALL life shares. A, C, G, and T. These form the base pairs for our and everything’s DNA.
So let’s take TCAGCATG as a simple sequence. Now lets take TCAGCATGA. What just happen? Could it be? BEHOLD!!!… the miracle of new information.
The fact is its a simple as addition or subtraction. These are observed to occur all the time now that we have the ability to map the genome.
Finally, we call it random mutation because so little is understood as to how or why each can occur, but the process of selection those mutations is anything, but random. Natural selection is the opposite of random. Saying genetics randomly piece together to form diversity of life is like saying a guy randomly died while continuously playing Russian roulette. It was only a matter of time.
Once again your presumtion that the Bible is not true is the only way to justify the science supporting evolution. In all sencerity I hope you realize this mistake before it is too late.
Macro evolution is one attempt by humans to explain the diversity of life and not necessarily the very origin, but then you have to try to explain the big bang theory which is also taught as fact in some places despite no scientific evidence to prove it.
So all life evolved rom this one organism (from the big bang). So you are saying the big bang also created the mechanism within this first organism to read the genetic code and recreate itself. (remember how much information this is)
I am a little confused by your self-replicating issue. I did not say that living organisms do not self-replicate. I said that they did. This goes back to the mechanism to read this code and replicate itself perfectly. Variations does not prove evolution, only microevolution and mutations. You cannot give me a proven example of a mutation that increased the complexity of an organism. Geneticists created over 3,000 mutations for the fruit fly, but none of them made the fruit fly more successful or created something different. Your argument shows that these mutations would happen by chance and create more evolved creatures over billions of years. (which you also cannot prove)
Your recombination or shuffling of genes is deceptive. Recombination is a discovery of Gregor Mendel, Darwin’s comtemporary. Recombination allows for small variation within a species, but is limited to these variations because it is just that. Recombination of the same genes.
Natural selection is not marco evolution, but rather micro within a species. It does not create anything, but simply is the concept of survival of the fitest.
Like I said in the very beginning, your presumptions that the Bible is not true will keep your from interpreting the same facts the same way.
You said “…people actually believe it. Mainly because they refuse to believe in God and in the Bible and mis-interpret data based upon these presumptions.”
So let’s say there was no evidence at all for evolution. Let’s say it was just a personal choice to believe in it, and it was just some wild thing people chose to believe in order to make themselves feel better. How exactly would that be any more ridiculous than believing in an invisible, omnipotent being in the sky, or the story of a jewish rabbi walking on water and raising people from the dead two thousand years ago? What a joke. Don’t call yourself a conservative. It’s embarrassing to people who can think.
WhatArgument?
Interesting comment considering that you say I cannot think, but you are the one who did not understand the very simple point I was making. My point is that people will interpret the same data (scientific in this case) in different ways based upon their presumptions. It is just a little common sense. That is why people such as yourself will never believe in creation and I will not believe in evolution. Your conservative comment also did not make much sense. The conservative perspective is one that thinks God should be in government (this is a politcal blog). If you are conservative leaning and do not believe this then more than likely you are a libertarian.
Although not ridiculous, being a Christian is all about faith. (And I would agree so is belief in evolution, but with much less historical support…the Bible is at least historically accurate) It is really pointless for someone to try to understand the concept of God using logic. You may see yourself as intelligent because you cannot figure it out with logic and reason, but that does not make it any less true or you any more intelligent. I would say that a belief in evolution vs a belief in God is like comparing apples to oranges. A belief in God is much more than how we were created. And I would also add this…the consequence of not believing in evolution is nothing while the consequence of not believing in God is quite severe. So why take the chance? The Christian faith promotes things that only help the world become a better place. Why not be apart of that?
a common question often asked by both intelligent designers and evolutionists, is one of eternal consequences. the question is; does God exist? the entire center of mankind is determined by whether we think of ourselves as god or whether we obey a super-being as Lord.
does God exist? there is a philosophy that teaches that all things are designed for a purpose. some very simple arguments for purposeful intelligent design come from creation. some might view this not as creation but as random existence of matter. in whichever camp you fall, consider the following; take for instance the earth’s distance from the sun. if the earth were any closer to the sun we would literally burn up. if any further from the sun we would freeze to death. perhaps we look at the tilt of the earth on its axis. the reason for this tilt is to ensure that all areas of the earth receive their proper amounts of sunlight. or look at the atmosphere. the chemistry consists of exactly the proper amounts of oxygen and nitrogen to sustain life. which, by the way, is the only atmosphere detected in the universe that can support human life. these are wonderful proofs of creation and intelligent design, but i save the most phenomenal evidence for last. the human being, the person. the human eye when exposed to darkness increases its perceptive abilities by 100,000 times. the human brain weighing only 3.3 lbs. , performs at the equivalent of what 500 tons of electrical technology can perform. because of these simple, even scientific facts that i have stated, “anyone who flat out rejects intelligent design rejects God. and does so not because science allowed them to do so, but simply because they choose to reject God.” exert from my book, “Why I Believe”
Very well said greg
I never cease to be amazed at how some people who refuse to believe in GOD and the truths He has shared with us in His word, resort to personal atacks on the idividual or groups he or she is debating with, when they cannot come up with a factual basis to support their own personal beliefs. It is true that it takes faith to believe in God and His account of His creation. However, this faith is founded on the proven truths that have been substantiated in His word. It takes a faith based on nothing but therory without proven tuths to believe in evolution.
David
Very well said David.
let’s get something absolutely straight here. both evolution and intelligent design are belief systems. for the debunker to throw out all this science is just irrelevant to the argument. allow me to explain. if the debunker prefers not to believe in god of the bible, he must still come up with some kind of first cause. either matter existing for all time or it came into existence out of nothing. in either case, matter becomes its own cause. so the creationists will ask the evolutionists, “but, then, who made matter?” in either case, one must simply believe– either in eternal omnipotent matter or in an eternal omnipotent creator god. each individual has to decide on which is more reasonable, but he should recognize this is not completely a scientific decision either way.
Reminds me of a quote and a joke.
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. – Albert Einstein
And
God is sitting in Heaven when a scientist says to Him, “Lord, we don’t need you anymore. Science has finally figured out a way to create life out of nothing.
In other words, we can now do what you did in the ‘beginning.’”
“Oh, is that so? Tell me…” replies God. “Well,” says the scientist, “we can take dirt and form it into the likeness of You and breathe life into it, thus creating man.”
“Well, that’s interesting. Show Me.”
So the scientist bends down to the earth and starts to mold the soil.
“Oh no, no, no…” interrupts God,
“Get your own dirt.”
allow me to reiterate some of debunkere’s point, notwithstanding the various irrelevant comments that followed.
Tcs, like most theists, you seem to think that evolution tries to explain abiogenesis. It does not. I’ll say that again.
Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Evolution does not even ATTEMPT to describe the formation of life.
Evolution does not attempt to describe the formation of the universe.
Evolution does not attempt to describe the temperature of your morning shower.
Evolution ONLY describes diversity of life. Period.
The fact that you don’t know this is both telling, and very, very frustrating. MOST theists I have encountered make a similar mistake. I’ve often had theists telling me how bad evolution is in describing the formation of the universe! – yes, this is actually how badly informed your average theist really is.
Now, I hope YOU understand the difference and you don’t continue to conflate the problem. I will continue..
“evolutionist is telling you that over billions of years (which is untrue itself)…”
Ooops, a blind assertion. The formation of the earth over billions of years is very well supported both explicitly in observation, and implicitly in calculation. It is VERY easy to show that planet formation takes billions of years from any number of sources. You actually have to have an idea of how to use mathematics, which is why I assume you have resorted only to one source, the bible(?) for your “evidence”?
If not, please show the readers and me, the logical, defensible evidence on which you have based this accusation of untruth.
“these pieces of information have by chance randomly come together to create all forms of plants and animals”
tcs, I am yet to meet a theist that actually understands how evolution works. You are no exception. Evolution is NOT “information coming together by chance”. this is NOT how it works, no-one has EVER said this is how it works EXCEPT THEISTS. If you wish, I can very easily show you exactly how evolution works, but it is NOT purely by chance. The fact that your entire argument is based on this flawed .. indeed, totally untrue.. concept of evolution pretty much renders your whole post invalid.
To give you a challenge about how evolution works, here is a thought experiment:
I give you 1000 dice, you must roll all of them naturally, at least once. Can you roll all the dice so that a six is rolled on ALL dice, in less than half an hour? I can, but then again, I know how evolution works, to apply YOUR version of evolution it would take longer than the universe exists for you to roll the required values – a simple calculation that I can show you, but again, you need to know how mathematics AND evolution works.
“For example our skin and a reptiles scales”
again, another point that reveals you have no concept of how evolution works. Noone has EVER suggested we “should” have reptile scales, why? because reptiles and simian species are on totally different branches of the evolutionary system. The only thing we have in common was an ancient ancestor, that may or may not have had scales, but they were certainly NOT “reptile” scales, why? because when that ancestor existed REPTILES DID NOT!.
So in the end, you are able to push your brand of half-bakes stories not from an informed, educated or sensible perspective, but only from one where you deliberately maintain a kind of ignorance about the facts, telling lies about what “evolutionists” really say or think, and by ignoring, wilfully or incidently, easily accessible information and data.
I am, however, encouraged that blogs like yours are becoming more few and far between. People don’t LIKE to be identified with ignorance as you have, they tend to actually go out and read the basic, authoritative texts – and I doubt you have EVER cracked a highschool science textbook, let alone be aware of the existence of the most important text that you claim to refute (without actually having the slightest idea what it is you are refuting) – “the origin of species”. if you did, you would know that evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, you would know that humans are not even expected to have scales, wings, feathers, etc. etc. – we ARE expected to have hair – most of us do.
Enjoy, tcs. I sincerly hope that you, and other readers of your blog mistruths, will do themselves the service of actually educating yourselves on the topics that you claim to … despite your ignorance… reject.
@greg
“let’s get something absolutely straight here. both evolution and intelligent design are belief systems”
wrong. evolution is as much a “belief” system as the sky being blue on a sunny day. The fact that you may think the sky is orange does not change the fact that it is blue. The sky is blue, regardless of how much you want it to be something else – belief does not come into it.
Evolution is 100% supported. It is 0% refuted. The poor attempts by tcs to “debunk” evolution are based only in an incomplete (close to zero) understanding of what evolution actually IS (and from experience, this is the case for most theists who say things silly things like, evolution says we should have reptile scales, where are they…sheesh – no, evolution does not say this, it never has), and from a very, very poor understanding of concepts like the second law of thermodynamics.
It’s interesting that these objections are not actually defensible – tcs has already betrayed how little she understands the 2LOT, and has referred me to – not a mathematical proof as she should, but rather an apologeticsts site which spends a few lines telling us how crystals lattices are not only not ordered (what??), but that the 2LOT doesn’t apply to DNA because polypeptide chemistry is endothermic… which leads to the question; if you think the 2LOT doesn’t apply to endothermic reactions, why do you try to apply it?? any comment tcs?
There are plenty of endothermic reactions that lead to an ordered state, you can find them with a google search of “endothermic crystal”..
So I’m not sure what’s going on here.
the refutement is based in ignorance, and a paltry, if at all, understanding of the concepts at hand. They are not rebutted logically, but by reference to yet more ignorance.
I really do want to know how you guys manage to refute an idea such as evolution, when you know almost nothing at all about it.
Interesting comments Anonymous. Saw them yesterday, but was at Church with the youth group most of the evening. I see you commented quite a bit on two different posts so I will just put my response on both of them. Also, I think you may have posted something on my About page that was meant for somewhere else mainly because it did make any sense so I am errasing that one…just letting you kow.
Just a few observations from the quite long comments you left. First some stuff that does not really have anything to do with the topic. I counted somewhere around 45 derogatory and/or condescending comments directed towards me. That may be a record for my site so congratulations, but I would like to offer a little bit of friendly constructive criticism if you do not mind. I would avoid such comments as it really does not add to any kind of intelligent discussion, but if you do wish to continue to repeatedly call someone uneducated, you should probably make sure you spell all the words you use correctly (you’re in the double digits there). Normally I would not even mention that, but the irony was eating at me…and you did basically call me stupid for 3 pages. I also found it interesting that you assumed I was uneducated just because I hold different beliefs than yourself and then assumed I was a female. Completely off topic I thought it is interesting that you are not American…what country are you from?
As for the topic. I only wanted to bring up a few points.
First, you said a couple of times that evolution is not refuted (Evolution is 100% supported. It is 0% refuted). That is not an accurate statement. There are quite a few PhDs and in fact entire institutes that would probably disagree with you. They are indeed apologetics and use the Bible as their foundation, but the work they do is scientific and they produce evidence in numerous scientific disciplines to support their claims. Institute for Creation Research…just to list an example of one of these.
On thermodynamics…I am not questioning your knowledge on the subject, but just your application to evolution. Nothing you said really supports the theory of evolution…just thermodynamics. It does not explain the mechanisms within life that use energy or where they came from in the first place. The first article I linked to was really talking more specifically about crystallization and how it really cannot be applied to the concept of evolution. Here is another article by Dr. Henry Morris that discusses the second law more generally in its application to evolution.
http://www.icr.org/articles/view/86/247/
In it he references Ilya Prigogine, who I assume you would agree is one of the world’s leading thermodynamicists. Prigogine also mentions crystallization and how it really does not apply. But the real idea of the article is that since no new energy can be created (Law of the Conservation of Energy) how does entropy and evolution co-exist. Of course when I am speaking of evolution I am not just speaking of things such as natural selection and similar mechanisms…I am talking about the evolution from prokaryotes to what we have today. You cannot separate the 2nd law from the complexity of life problem…or the information problem that some people call it. Evolution does not try to explain where that first matter came from, but it does try to explain how that first matter turned into what we have today.
One of the things you asked for was the evidence that is used to show the earth is not as old as many evolutionists say it is. There is geological evidence that supports the theory that the layers of strata were formed very quickly, astrological evidence related the speed of the stars, mud depth on the ocean floors..etc. You can look into those if you wish. I just wanted to show that there is scientific evidence to support that assertion. As a Christian all I need is the Bible, but the great thing about God is that he left plenty of evidence all around us to support his creation of Earth. You are not a Christian so of course you will try to find out a logical explanation other than God (really anything but God) to fill the void of what is not understood, thus your belief in evolution. Both beliefs. Both provide evidence. How that evidence is viewed is simply based on our initial presumptions.
Pointing out that you are uninformed is not derogatroy. Pointing out that you are ignorant is also not derogatory. I am ignorant about a lot of things, I don’t take offence when somone says so – it’s the truth.
“There are quite a few PhDs and in fact entire institutes that would probably disagree with you.”
Let’s consider this shall we?
To “refute” a preposition, you have to show, logically, why that preposition is illogical. That is all you have to do. There is nothing magic about it.
The key word here, is logic. Evolution is logical. Science is logical. Faith, is not.
I’ll say that again for you because it’s important. Faith is not logical.
I’ll continue in a sec, but no doubt you’ll object to “faith is illogical”, so let me explain why it is illogical.
Logic uses syllogisms, developed from premises. The conclusions are dependen on the premises, therefore, if you have rubbish premises, the conclusion will also be rubbish –
for example: all agnostics breathe fire, I am an agnostic, therefore I breathe fire; is a perfectly valid syllogism. but is it logical?
No, it is not. Why? because the premise “all agnostics breathe fire” is not factually supported. It is therefore a fallacy, known as the fallacy of bind assertion.
As a christian, your syllogism is as follows.
God created all things
I am a thing
therefore, god created me.
It’s a perfectly valid syllogism, but is it logical?
Again, no, it is not. why? because of the blind assertion “god created all things” – you don’t actually know this, it is, by definition, unprovable. This is what “faith” means. Since you don’t “know” it, you ASSUME it.. blindly. i.e. a blind assertion.
Therefore faith is illogical.
Okay so now you understand why faith is illogical,
Then you go on to say that evolution is refuted by “PhDs and various institutes” …. and the key part… “They are indeed apologetics and use the Bible as their foundation”
Whoops.
We’ve already shown how faith is illogical, therefore, any syllogisms constructed which are contingent on the logic of faith are ALSO illogical.
I’ll just repeat that for you.
If you use a fallacious premise, then your conclusion MUST ALSO be fallacious.
Faith is fallcious. period. This is not opinion, this is not personal feeling. This is not even a bias, it is just quite simply, exactly what faith is – faith, according to a common parlance of “belief without proof” is NECESSARILY a blind assertion. A blind assertion is a FALLACY. Faith is FALLACIOUS, therefore, any conclusions that are rooted in faith are ALSO fallacious.
Then you go on…
“the work they do is scientific and they produce evidence in numerous scientific disciplines to support their claims. Institute for Creation Research…just to list an example of one of these.”
I am a research scientist. My OWN personal publication record is superior in number, breadth, application and in citations than the ENTIRE of the ICR’s publications. ICR do not publish in any scientific journals, except their own. Like most real researchers, I publish in a wide variety of journals, accessible to the public and professionals. ICR do not engage in peer review. Real researchers are subject to a (occasionally rather harrowing..) peer-review system, the sole functin of which is for skeptic review and for examination of the logic robustness.
If you are going to cite institutes as references and insiste they use the same science as everyone else, , use ones that publish in the same science journals as everyone else. To claim that the ICR invoke the scientific method, much less the peer review system is just laughable. When ICR publish in NATURE, or SCIENCE, THEN, I will pay attention. Until they do, It’s just another self-serving church. Here is the bottom line, ICR do NOT use the scientific method. You are misinformed when you say their efforts are in any way “scientific” – they are NOT.
Now, onto your reference for “Dr.” morris.
Bear in mind here, that despite morris’s credentials, I have met people with phds in engineering that honestly believe they have made a perpetual motion machine (google for lutec). While I would LIKE to think that a Phd means that the “dr.” knows what he is talking about, demonstrably, it does not.
your pal Morris is no exception, indeed, he is either wilfully lying, wilfully omitting the rest of the story, or simply ignorant. I’d like you to stop and think for a second – why is it that so few educated people actually subscribe to this idea of the 2LOT disproving evolution? Do you honestly think that all scientists get told in THERM101 – “shhhh, even though all our thermodynamics principals appear to work perfectly and create engines, machines etc. it’s actually a big sham between engineers, machinists, the automotive industry, boilermakers, and pretty much everyone else who uses heat, and the rest of the planet”…
um? really?
Let me pick out the bit that your pal morris is not talking about;
“The obvious prediction from the evolution model of a universal principle that increases order is confronted by the scientific fact of a universal principle that decreases order.”
Okay, fine, let’s do this by hypothetical:
Let’s sit in a room. close the door. there’s you, me… and stack of 5 buckets, and 50 marbles.
How many marbles are there in the room? 50.
Now, I get you to sort the marbles into two buckets, put them on the left side, and the right side of the room.
How many on the left? 25. On the right? 25.
How many marbles in the room? 50.
25 on the left is too many!, take some out. now there is 10, there’s 15 on the floor, and 25 in the other end of the room.
How many in the room? 50.
See what happened? you sorted marbles, you moved them around, you clustered them, you unclustered them….
but the number of marbles in the room was ALWAYS 50.
This is how the 2LOT works, it merely “re arranges” the amount of order. This is in contrast to what your pal morris is telling you. It is perfectly possible to have a great deal of order in one small place, as long as you create more disorder somewhere else. YOU DONT EVEN HAVE TO INCREASE THE NET AMOUNT OF ORDER (also contrasting what your mate tries to insist), the 2LOT is that order is conserved OR increases. EITHER CAN BE VALID.
he goes on.
“Nevertheless evolutionists retain faith that, somehow, evolution and entropy can co-exist, even though they don’t know how.”
Erm, we know exactly how evolution and entropy can co-exist, because, unlike morris, we understand what the 2LOT tells us.
This is why ice forms – ice is more orderd. To make it, you must “remove” more disorder. More disorder can be in the form of heat. To make ice, we remove heat.
simple.
Nothing cunning, nothing tricky. There’s no confusion to anyone except theists. The mathematics is perfectly straightforward, the physics is actually rather trivial if you’re at a senior level.
I actually don’t really understand why you theists don’t get this. I actually don’t understand why you think that the 2LOT disproves evolution at all, since … well, it really doesn’t. Moving “order” around is something you do every day – and you’re not a god.
“There is geological evidence that supports the theory that the layers of strata were formed very quickly”
Yes, because SOME strata WAS formed quickly, most of it was formed slowly. Do you know what “cherry picking” means? it’s another fallacy.
“, astrological evidence related the speed of the stars”
That would be “astronomical” – and this is one I’ve not heard before, I’d appreciate a reference. Something published in any of “The astronomical journal”, “The Astrophysical journal,” “Astronomy and Astrophysics”, “Nature”, “Science”, “Mercury” or another journal of their caliber please.
“You can look into those if you wish.”
Strange, you know, I can’t actually find a single peer-reviewed published journal that has anything like any of these – you ARE talking about real scientific journals aren’t you? you’re not talking about the pseudo science from the ICR, or online apologietics are you?
“You are not a Christian so of course you will try to find out a logical explanation other than God (really anything but God) to fill the void of what is not understood, thus your belief in evolution”
well, the reality is that as a christian, you DON’T find a logical explanation to fill the void of what is understood, but I’ll take issue with your point. I’m perfectly happy to acknowledge that I don’t know quite a lot of things. I’m perfectly happy with the fact that humans’ knowledge is finite. The FACT that humans’ knowledge is finite is not proof of the existence of god, it is proof only of our finite knowledge. What is interesting is your apparent assumption that agnostics/atheists still think they have the answer – no, they don’t. This is actually a distinguishing ramification of atheism – we KNOW we don’t know. Agnosticism is actually and EXPLICIT recognition of that fact – so to imply that we think we know everything is really just a lie. Thists on the other hand, DO know everything;
me: “how did the universe form?”
you. “god did it”
you: “how did the universe form?
me: “I don’t know”.
Do you see the difference? I’ll thank you to stop making generalisations about what you think I say.
so in summary:
1. Faith is, using the word as defined by common usage. Illogical. This is not opinion, it is a logical result from the demands imposed by “faith”.
2. Conclusions that are derived from the assumptions of the logical validity of faith, are therefore ALSO illogical. This is also why theistic papers don’t appear in scientific journals – they’re illogical in their founding assumptions.
3. Assuming the 2LOT “disproves” evolution by assuming that it demands that “disorder” be increased everywhere simultaneously is actually inconsistent with the 2LOT completely.
4. Asserting that agnostics/atheists purport to knowing everything, is actually just a disingenuous lie, generally speaking, and atually defies the common-usage definition of “agnostic”.
Ta, now I’ll have a look at your other posts.
This conversation is pretty much at a dead end, wouldnt you agree. Once again nothing you have said gives a very good explanation for the major holes in the theory of evolution that I mentioned. You are just repeating the same things over and over again….things within the 2LOT and thermodynamics that have no relevance to the theory. You have certainly not made an impression with me and I will not change your mind because you do not believe in God.
My only point in giving basic examples of evidence is to one, show that there is evidence that counters aspects of the theory, and two, to show how presumptions will lead different people to look at the exact same evidence in a different way. Your comments illustrated that point. Just like you picked out certain sentences from that very general article. As much as you would like to believe that scientific work is objective, it is really not. Especially when it moves into the realm of religion. Or in politics these days…ie global warming…so much for scientific integrity and peer review, huh. In your case you get pretty upset by anything Christian…if your response that I just read on my other more recent post is any indication. There are a lot of quality scientists that are Christian and do quality work in the sciences. Just because they believe in the Bible does not mean there methods are any different than any other scientist. Just to let you know I am closing off comments for this particular post. One it is a very old post and two I am closing out all my older posts this weekend. Will just leave you with a closing thought or two. What happens when we die and what if you are wrong.
Good luck with your research.
Comments on this entry are closed.