Need help debunking

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron

Need help debunking

#1  Postby Mycernius » Feb 03, 2011 6:10 pm

I have just had this posted over on a FB discussion board. I have debunked some of it, but I would like some to have a better look at it. I'm not sure where it is originally from as the creotard who posted it did not cite the source (no surprise there)
Be warned a bit of a word salad and full of obvious BS.
Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong


Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.


The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.



Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists' text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.


Scientific Fact No. 3 - Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong

Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals.


Scientific Fact No. 4 - Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.


Scientific Fact No. 5 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong



The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.


Scientific Fact No. 6 - Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong

The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory.


Scientific Fact No. 7 - Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong

There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.


Scientific Fact No. 8 - Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.



Scientific Fact No. 9 - Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Two NASA two land rovers named Spirit and Opportunity explored Mars during 2004. The topography shows obvious signs of past liquid rivers flowing in numerous places. The rovers have proven that water was once abundant on the surface of Mars, but they have not been able to find any signs of life or any signs of past life on the planet. Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface and an atmosphere suitable to support life forms. The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory, yet there is no life on Mars. The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile.


Scientific Fact No. 10 - Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong

Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life. The entire universe lacks any sign of life. There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms. None of the billions of galaxies has been found to emit any intelligent radio signals. Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding an intelligent signal. No signs of life beyond Earth have been found. We are alone.



Top Ten Scientific Facts Proving Evolution is False and Impossible
Image
User avatar
Mycernius
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 362
Age: 54
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Need help debunking

#2  Postby Shrunk » Feb 03, 2011 6:19 pm

I think this is the original source. The graphics tell you all you need to know before you even start reading it.

http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm

Facts 9 and 10: Even by creationist standards, WTF?!
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 59
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Need help debunking

#3  Postby campermon » Feb 03, 2011 6:22 pm

This one is an old chestnut;

cretinist says wrote:Scientific Fact No. 6 - Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong

The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos. Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct. Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory.


The 2nd Law applies to a closed system only. The Earth is not a closed system in that there is an exchange of matter and energy with the surrounding environment.

Hackenslash and Cali have written extensively (and very well) on this.

:cheers:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17444
Age: 54
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Need help debunking

#4  Postby Weaver » Feb 03, 2011 7:18 pm

1) Strawman. Not a real scenario to explain the evolutionary development of a bird's wing.
2) Lies. Not only do fossil similarities exist for numerous other species than H. Sapiens (and related apes), scientists have actively gone to find predicted transitional fossils in specified strata - and found just what was predicted.
3) Strawmen. Not a real scenario to explain the origin of life.
4) Strawman. That boils down to Lamarkian genetics - and Lamark was discarded long ago by real scientists.
5) Lie. Flat out bald-faced fucking lie.
6) Stupid understanding of thermodynamics. One might ask them what that bright thing in the sky which hurts them to gaze upon is.
7) Stupidity. Complete misunderstanding of population genetics. Refuted by evidence of chromosomal merger in the Human genome.
8) Nothing to do with evolution - but by no means "prove it wrong". Far better explanations than goddidit.
9) Yeah, because two tiny spacecraft together searching an area smaller in actual traversed land than a couple football fields can be definitively said to completely rule out all evidence of life on a fucking planet. Please.
10) Again - they clearly have no idea how goddamn big the Universe is, if they think only a few decades of listening on radio telescopes can forever rule out life throughout.

Methinks you need to assist in the evolution of a smarter species of creotard.
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
 
Posts: 20125
Age: 55
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Need help debunking

#5  Postby willhud9 » Feb 04, 2011 7:13 pm

1) First of all, wing evolution was gradual. Early dinosaur's bone structure especially the arms are given evidence for wing evolution. Next, it was not as if a bird all of a sudden had wings and flew. It is unknown whether Archaeopteryx was decent flyer but Archae does help scientists understand flight evolution. Next, the argument that evolution cannot be true because it "has" a negative impact on the given animal is bullocks. There are plenty of bird ancestors that died out due to negative mutations and the surviving populations successfully reproduced and "passed" on the strong genes. Of course I am simplifying things. Its funny how creationists try to act all smart, but do not even do basic research on the matters of evolution of the wing.

2) Except evolutionists don't. The source the creationists are citing is this:
Image
which is not an accurate depiction of human evolution. The tree of evolution has many branches, and do not form a straight line.

3) Scientists in the past did not have the knowledge or technology we have today. Complexity does not mean evolution is wrong, but in fact gives evidence for it. That structures that would have been proficient on their own, are essentially combined with other structures to increase functions for the organism, is essential in natural selection and in evolution. The argument the creationist uses here, seems to be taken from Darwin's Black Box in which Behe argues that evolutionists in trying to answer one problem, raises an infinite amount of others. Hence "there will always be a black box." This is nonsense, because while scientists do not have all the answers of life's complexity, evolution offers the best scientific solution to many if not most of the problems.

4) First of all, the post is extremely wrong. It is the XY-Chromosomes that makes a boy and the XX-Chromosome that make a girl. The fact they messed up this simple, elementary-level genetics is quite pathetic. It also shows that they no shit-all about genetics.

5) o.0 Um...mutations do happen. Quite often. Sure we don't all get the power to move metal with our minds, or shoot laser beams from our eyes, but DNA does in fact change.

6) Campermon stated, we live in an open system, not a closed one. From wikipedia:
The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal principle of decay observable in nature. The second law is an observation of the fact that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential tend to even out in a physical system that is isolated from the outside world. Entropy is a measure of how much this process has progressed. The entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.


7) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FGYzZOZxMw I think Ken Miller does a wonderful job addressing this.

8) Abiogenesis is not evolution >.< Besides, scientists have valid theories for the creation and formulation of the universe besides a magic man.

9) Image Someone is angry he was forgotten about.

10) :nono: :facepalm: :rofl: What idiocy.

Hope this helps!
Fear is a choice you embrace
Your only truth
Tribal poetry
Witchcraft filling your void
Lust for fantasy
Male necrocracy
Every child worthy of a better tale
User avatar
willhud9
 
Name: William
Posts: 19379
Age: 32
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Need help debunking

#6  Postby pelfdaddy » Feb 04, 2011 8:58 pm

At one time, all theists assumed that the human body was essentially simple and magically animated by a spirit (which was the mind) and a soul (the seat of the essence and emotions), with courage residing in the chest and fear churning in the intestines. So scientists (not theologians), thinking scientifically, discovered the cell, and thought it was somewhat of an elementary particle. Then other scientists (not evangelists), still thinking scientifically, realized that the cell was more complex than previously understood. Then later scientists (not prophets) continued the trend until today.

And this process of discovery is deemed by theists to "prove" the stupidity of scientists, because scientists at one time had incomplete knowledge of the cell(!?!?!)

Theists depend upon authority for their knowledge, so they assume that "science" likewise poses as an authoritative body of facts that are unassailable in the eyes of ivory tower eggheads, until embarrassingly "proven wrong". They fail to see Science as a method of thinking that is useful for finding things out, and they never seem to catch on that theology is not a method of thinking at all.
pelfdaddy
 
Posts: 1022
Age: 57
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Need help debunking

#7  Postby Latimeria » Feb 05, 2011 3:58 am

Looks like others are hacking away at this already. I'd be glad to chip in if you've got one in particular that needs a bit of work. That's too many terds in the toiletbowl... I like to flush them one at a time.
" [This space is for rent to "which ever version of POOF creates the largest cloud of obnoxious smoke following the POOF."[1] "- God
Works Cited:
[1] - theropod. Parsimony of the Miraculous. RatSkep Peanut Gallery Press, 2011.
User avatar
Latimeria
RS Donator
 
Posts: 1083
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Need help debunking

#8  Postby ADParker » Feb 05, 2011 10:57 am

Mycernius wrote:I have just had this posted over on a FB discussion board. I have debunked some of it, but I would like some to have a better look at it. I'm not sure where it is originally from as the creotard who posted it did not cite the source (no surprise there)
Be warned a bit of a word salad and full of obvious BS.

Wow, took a look, and that one has sure done the rounds. It appears that it might initially be from here:
Top ten Scientific Facts Proving Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution is Wrong, False, and Impossible
(As a nice starting point, the article has been modified so that his list of the "Top ten" is a list of thirteen, plus a few other titbits.

Mycernius's chewtoy wrote:Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong


Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.

Reference to an image of Tweety Bird - yes the Loony Tunes character. :roll:

Mycernius's chewtoy wrote:The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists.

By "not answered" he means that he hasn't bothered to look, because he already 'knows' the answer.

Mycernius's chewtoy wrote:The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless?

This guy is an idiot. No one suggests that this is how winged flight evolved. He has erected a childish naive Straw Man, asserted that this is THE dogmatic evolutionary answer, and proceeds to attach his made up fantasy story.
This is all too common; imagining any aspect of evolution as some if it involved building an organism (and/or organ, feature like teh wing etc.) piece by piece: "How did the wing evolve - grew the wind stub, then a big longer, add the feathers..." "how did bird nests evolve - -one twig at a time?! How did the first nest with one or two twigs possibly hold a clutch of eggs?" "How did the eye evolve, what came first and in what order?; the cornea, the eye socket then the muscles attaching it to the eye socket, the optic nerve?!"... :nono:

Mycernius's chewtoy wrote:This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment.

{Yawn}
"What good is half a wing?" Seriously?

Mycernius's chewtoy wrote:Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless?

It wouldn't. THEREFORE that is not how it evolved. And that is why evolutionary biologists don't propose such naive and inane scenarios.


Mycernius's chewtoy wrote:The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species.

Um no, not really.


Mycernius's chewtoy wrote:A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection.

Correct. Only the non-useless ones would offer selective advantage. The ones that offered a little more glide or flight time for instance.

Mycernius's chewtoy wrote:According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers.

:what:

Mycernius's chewtoy wrote:According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly.

Natural Selection is not a theory. It is a fact that is included in a theory.

Mycernius's chewtoy wrote:Evolution is simply nonsense.

Your simply inane...nay insane...Straw Man or evolution is "simply nonsense." But that has nothing to do with the actual theory of evolution. :lol:

Mycernius's chewtoy wrote:This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.

Wow, just wow! :crazy:
Reason Over Faith
User avatar
ADParker
RS Donator
 
Name: Andrew
Posts: 5643
Age: 52
Male

Country: New Zealand
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Need help debunking

#9  Postby trubble76 » Feb 05, 2011 11:09 am

Creationism isn't about finding truth, it's just about repeating the same lies over and over and over. I'm not a biologist, or even a scientist and yet I can eviscerate those points (as many of my learned colleagues here have) without even breaking a sweat. These people are lying scum, delusional lunatics or just epically stupid. Perhaps a combination thereof.
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose,
And nothin' ain't worth nothin' but it's free.

"Suck me off and I'll turn the voltage down"
User avatar
trubble76
RS Donator
 
Posts: 11205
Age: 47
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Need help debunking

#10  Postby Shrunk » Feb 05, 2011 12:40 pm

pelfdaddy wrote:At one time, all theists assumed that the human body was essentially simple and magically animated by a spirit (which was the mind) and a soul (the seat of the essence and emotions), with courage residing in the chest and fear churning in the intestines. So scientists (not theologians), thinking scientifically, discovered the cell, and thought it was somewhat of an elementary particle. Then other scientists (not evangelists), still thinking scientifically, realized that the cell was more complex than previously understood. Then later scientists (not prophets) continued the trend until today.

And this process of discovery is deemed by theists to "prove" the stupidity of scientists, because scientists at one time had incomplete knowledge of the cell(!?!?!)

Theists depend upon authority for their knowledge, so they assume that "science" likewise poses as an authoritative body of facts that are unassailable in the eyes of ivory tower eggheads, until embarrassingly "proven wrong". They fail to see Science as a method of thinking that is useful for finding things out, and they never seem to catch on that theology is not a method of thinking at all.


The creationist error is even more fundamental than that. As willhud9 alludes, the complexity of the cell actually strengthens the argument against creationism.

Imagine if, instead of a complex cell, we found the cell was extremely simple, a tiny bag full of undifferentiated protoplasm. This would present enormous problems for any naturalistic understanding of biology, because it would be difficult, if not impossible, to explain how such simple entities could conglomerate into organisms capable of seeing, hearing, moving and thinking. It would leave the field open to postulate some supernatural force that imparts those functions onto living things. IOW, a god who acts as some enormous "puppetmaster", controlling all the processes of all organisms on earth.

As it is, that claim is untenable since all biological functions can be explained as arising from the functioning of the complex "machinery" found within the cell, and therefore be reduced to naturalistic physical or chemical processes. If someone feels compelled to believe in a god, he cannot believe in the "puppetmaster" god, but only a "designer" god, who creates elaborate machines that then run of their own accord. IOW, the "argument from complexity" relates only to theology, not science. It only determines how small the gap is into which a god can be inserted and, of the two, that of the "designer" god is by far the smaller.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 59
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Need help debunking

#11  Postby pelfdaddy » Feb 05, 2011 11:16 pm

Well put Shrunk,

Complexity points away from God. A universe with a God could be populated with foam rubber characters animated by ghosts who, when knives were fatally stuck into their foam rubber suits, would float free like a vapor and moan "boooo". If theists still believed in this kind of simplicity, and you asked then what a godless universe would be like, they might suppose that complex mechanisms like Brains, The Laws of Physics, and Photosynthesis would be required to run things in God's absence.
pelfdaddy
 
Posts: 1022
Age: 57
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Need help debunking

#12  Postby ADParker » Feb 05, 2011 11:24 pm

Mycernius's chewtoy wrote:
Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong

We could end this right there. No it doesn't. This is a classic argument from Ignorance: You can't show X, therefore X is false. (I can't produce my father, does that mean my claim to have one is wrong?!)


Mycernius's chewtoy wrote:The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution.

Uh, no 'he' wouldn't, that's just stupid.
Now; the presence of a particular species, and how it fits in with all the other known species and evidence, THAT would count as another instance of supporting evidence for the theory!

A perfect example being just such a fossil that is previously long predicted to exist, based on the theory, then being found, and perfectly fitting in with the prediction and theory!
Tiktaalik roseae being just such a well known case. But that is a Hel of a lot more that the simple "presence of many individual species," it is about how those species relate to one another in terms of form, age and so forth.

Mycernius's chewtoy wrote:This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof.

Agreed. But it is yours, not the theory's.

Mycernius's chewtoy wrote:Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another.

Or at least that the evidence strongly supports that they did. It is of course a lot more than a simplistic matter of "similar looking" though. (Creotards have to dumb the science down, it is the only way their Straw Man arguments can possible 'work.')

Mycernius's chewtoy wrote:Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man.

'They' actually compile quite a complex branching tree diagram, the simplistic direct line images you are no doubt thinking of, is not the full science, but a simplified concept to get across to the general public, deliberately missing out much of the finer detail, which may confuse those not up to play on the science. Those that understand the theory in any meaningful way, also understand what is actually meant in such cladograms, including what data is and is not included.

And they are "lined up" based on multiple lines of evidence, and only when all of those differing lines match up (And this is why some of those aspects of such models have changed over time, as new evidence has been found.)

Mycernius's chewtoy wrote:They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture.

By "make-believe" he means "postulated and predicted."
There are none that I know of in current Human evolution models, as we have so many examples, no need for postulated ones, no "missing links."

Mycernius's chewtoy wrote:This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species.

In other words this can be done because we have so much evidence! :lol:

Mycernius's chewtoy wrote:They never do this with giraffes and elephants.

They do to a degree, but have less fossil evidence available. Finding fossils is hard work, and many may never be found, or were never formed, as fossilization is a relatively rare process depending on so many variables.

Mycernius's chewtoy wrote:These pictures are placed in all evolutionists' text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.

No the simplified drawings do not "prove" evolution. And only a closed-minded fool would assume that the drawings is all that there is too it. They represent a vast wealth of information and study, they are the tip of a very large iceberg. A representation of the (current) conclusion, not the evidence for that conclusion. :roll:
Reason Over Faith
User avatar
ADParker
RS Donator
 
Name: Andrew
Posts: 5643
Age: 52
Male

Country: New Zealand
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Need help debunking

#13  Postby hackenslash » Feb 06, 2011 12:38 am

Anonymous Cretin wrote:Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong


Oh, really? That would seem to be contradicted by a statement that is coming right up from the same idiot, who accepts that:

The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis.


Hmmm.

However, other examples on the evolutionary tree have many laughable flaws. One of the best is the thought that a bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable in his environment. The wing was much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve a wing that was useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary natural selection concept that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations improving a wing that was useless? The theory of evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage and the opposite from natural selection. According to natural selection the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny. We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.


Well, apart from the fact that he's got it all arse-ways up in terms of the evolution of wings, even his cretinous assertion that wing stubs would have been useless is flat-out wrong. Dawkins deals quite nicely with this specific example in Climbing Mount Improbable, in which he points out that even a bit of a wing will allow you to survive a fall from a given height, and the larger the portion, the further you can fall and survive.

In any event, this pathetic caricature is not among the hypotheses concerning wing evolution. It's fairly certain that they are an exaptation, whether talking about avian wings or other cases. There's a pretty decent page on the evolution of wings HERE.

Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Proves Evolution is Wrong


Does it really? Are you sure?

The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species.


Err, you mean 'make-believe' fossils that have actually been found? We'll overlook the cretinous idea of 'scientific proof', which is pretty much an oxymoron.

They never do this with giraffes and elephants.


Oh, really?

http://tolweb.org/Giraffoidea/50877
http://tolweb.org/Proboscidea/15987
Image

These pictures are placed in all evolutionists' text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.


As opposed to the rectally extracted nonsense of semi-literate nomads placed in the textbooks of Cdesignproponentsists, you mean? The pictures aren't meant to 'prove' anything. They are there to demonstrate what the evidence shows.

Scientific Fact No. 3 - Single Cell Complexity Proves Evolution is Wrong

Scientists a century ago believed the smallest single living cell was a simple life form. The theory developed that perhaps lightning struck a pond of water causing several molecules to combine in a random way which by chance resulted in a living cell. The cell then divided and evolved into higher life forms. This view is now proven to be immature to the degree of being ridiculous. The most modern laboratory is unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals.


He might want to check out Mechanical design of proteins studied by single-molecule force spectroscopy and protein engineering - Carrion-Vazquez et al, Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, Volume 74, Issues 1-2, July-August 2000.

Scientific Fact No. 4 - Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.


This moron has never heard of parthenogenesis, obviously.

Oh, and The evolution of sex chromosomes - B Charlesworth Science Vol. 251 no. 4997 1991

Scientific Fact No. 5 - DNA Error Checking Proves Evolution is Wrong

The scientific fact that DNA replication includes a built-in error checking method and a DNA repair process proves the evolutionary theory is wrong. The fact is that any attempt by the DNA to change is stopped and reversed.


Err, no. While it is true that replication has error-checking and repair, it is imperfect. Indeed, the 2LT ensures that error-correction during replication must be imperfect.

Thermodynamics of error correction: speed-error-dissipation tradeoff in copying - Bennett et al, 2008

Scientific Fact No. 6 - Chaos From Organization Proves Evolution is Wrong

The second law of thermodynamics proves that organization cannot flow from chaos.


Oh dear. Firstly, we have a mechanism for organisation from 'chaos' (horrible misuse of that word here). It's called GRAVITY.

Complex live organisms cannot rearrange themselves into an organism of a higher form as claimed by evolutionists. This is scientifically backwards according to the second law of thermodynamics that has never been proven wrong. Scientists cannot have it both ways. The second law of thermodynamics is proven to be correct.


Dealt with this HERE

Evolution lacks any scientific proof. Evolution is simply an empty theory.


Empty except for the hard evidence from reality, you mean.

Scientific Fact No. 7 - Chromosome Count Proves Evolution is Wrong

There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.


Actually, evolutionary theory predicted that a fused chromosome would be found and guess what? It found it! (scans upthread to see if anybody's posted the Kenneth Miller vid yet...)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk[/youtube]

The paper in question is Generation and annotation of the DNA sequences of human chromosomes 2 and 4 - Hillier et al - Nature 2004

Incidentally, while humans and chimps almost certainly can't produce viable offspring, it is quite unclear that the chromosome difference alone prevents it. Indeed, since the fused chromosome expresses identically to the unfused chromosome, and accounts for none of the phenotypic differences between the two, there are those who think that it may not present a barrier. The jury is out on this question.

Scientific Fact No. 8 - Origin of Matter and Stars Proves Evolution is Wrong


D'oh! Evolution is not cosmology.

Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere.


Ooops. Problem here being that 'somewhere' pertains to a location in space, which is a nonsense concept before the big bang, because there was no fucking 'where'. In any event, we have some very good ideas about the mechanism behind the input of energy, which is all that is required, into the system. Which of them, if any, will turn out to be correct, is still a matter of intense research.

Scientific Fact No. 9 - Lack of Life on Mars Proves Evolution is Wrong

Two NASA two land rovers named Spirit and Opportunity explored Mars during 2004. The topography shows obvious signs of past liquid rivers flowing in numerous places. The rovers have proven that water was once abundant on the surface of Mars, but they have not been able to find any signs of life or any signs of past life on the planet. Mars has a proven history of flowing water on the surface and an atmosphere suitable to support life forms. The planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory, yet there is no life on Mars. The river beds and river banks show no signs of vegetation or trees. The ground has no fossils and no organisms. The place is absolutely sterile.


That's a very sweeping assertion. Interestingly, there was a detection of methane in the atmosphere of Mars a few years ago. The apposite paper is Detection of Methane in the Atmosphere of Mars - Formisano et al - Science 2004.

Now, it could be that this is from a non-biogenic source, but it is often associated with biogenic sources. It is thought possible that microbial life could exist on Mars even now below the surface. Again, the jury is out. It's certainly not been deemed a scientific fact that Mars never supported life. We simply don't now yet. In any event, there is no requirement under the theory of evolution for life to have ever existed on Mars, or anywhere else, for that matter. The theory of evolution only requires that life exists here and now, and that traits are heritable.

Scientific Fact No. 10 - Radio Silence from Space Proves Evolution is Wrong

Mars is not the only place that shows no signs of life. The entire universe lacks any sign of life. There are no radio signals that can be related to intelligent life forms. None of the billions of galaxies has been found to emit any intelligent radio signals. Scientists have been pointing every type of radio telescope possible into space for several decades in hopes of finding an intelligent signal. No signs of life beyond Earth have been found. We are alone.


The Tall One With The Towel wrote:Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.


We have been utilising radio for about 70 years, give or take. Given that the Milky Way is 100,000 light years across, that means that our radio signals have made it less than one tenth of one percent across the galactic disc. This also means that anything outside the sphere that our signals have covered would have to have left their source at least that long ago. If a technological civilisation in the Andromeda galaxy that utilised radio existed, their signals would have to have left there 2.5 million years ago to reach us now. Given the size of the universe, and the finitude of c, it is highly improbable that we would have detected signals from elsewhere yet, and that's even before we get into all the barriers to a technological civilisation. Intelligence isn't the only thing required to accomplish this. It also takes opposable thumbs, or some similar mechanism by which tool manufacture can be undertaken. Anybody who thinks we should have detected signals from eslewhere if there were life elsewhere in the universe is labouring under some really serious misapprehensions. I can expand on this topic at will with the many and diverse factors involved in our detecting transmissions from elsewhere in the universe, if anybody wants me to, although it is ground I have covered at length and in detail elsewhere ad nauseum, so the material should be reasonably easy to find if anybody's that interested.
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22910
Age: 54
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Need help debunking

#14  Postby willhud9 » Feb 06, 2011 1:33 am

Hey Hack! You repeated the same argument I made for #7 :mob: :P

Edit: It is actually not the same vid, but rather I believe mine is of better quality. Yours is taken from his presentation in Ohio, I think, or PA.
Fear is a choice you embrace
Your only truth
Tribal poetry
Witchcraft filling your void
Lust for fantasy
Male necrocracy
Every child worthy of a better tale
User avatar
willhud9
 
Name: William
Posts: 19379
Age: 32
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Need help debunking

#15  Postby hackenslash » Feb 06, 2011 1:41 am

Sorry, didn't spot it, because it wasn't embedded.
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22910
Age: 54
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Need help debunking

#16  Postby willhud9 » Feb 06, 2011 1:45 am

hackenslash wrote:Sorry, didn't spot it, because it wasn't embedded.


Just messing around :lol: But I enjoyed reading your post. More informative than mine!
Fear is a choice you embrace
Your only truth
Tribal poetry
Witchcraft filling your void
Lust for fantasy
Male necrocracy
Every child worthy of a better tale
User avatar
willhud9
 
Name: William
Posts: 19379
Age: 32
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Need help debunking

#17  Postby pelfdaddy » Feb 06, 2011 4:33 am

I know this general concept is oft-addressed here, but the whole idea of a "bird" evolving wings suggests that creationists envisage the absurd idea of a beautiful parrot, complete with full plumage, claws, tropical paint scheme, a beak and a love for saltines, hopping about wingless in antipcipation of millions of years of eventual wing-building evolution. This entirely ignores the fact that the birds we now know evolved from creatures that were very different, evolving in a gradual manner virtually all of the recognizable features we now readily identify as "bird-like".
pelfdaddy
 
Posts: 1022
Age: 57
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Need help debunking

#18  Postby willhud9 » Feb 06, 2011 4:38 am

pelfdaddy wrote:I know this general concept is oft-addressed here, but the whole idea of a "bird" evolving wings suggests that creationists envisage the absurd idea of a beautiful parrot, complete with full plumage, claws, tropical paint scheme, a beak and a love for saltines, hopping about wingless in antipcipation of millions of years of eventual wing-building evolution. This entirely ignores the fact that the birds we now know evolved from creatures that were very different, evolving in a gradual manner virtually all of the recognizable features we now readily identify as "bird-like".


I started studying the evolution of flying about a month ago and in that month, I have a strong appreciation for evolution and the true genuine beauty that it involves. Nature is a marvelous thing and one that many people take for granted.
Fear is a choice you embrace
Your only truth
Tribal poetry
Witchcraft filling your void
Lust for fantasy
Male necrocracy
Every child worthy of a better tale
User avatar
willhud9
 
Name: William
Posts: 19379
Age: 32
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Need help debunking

#19  Postby Goldenmane » Feb 06, 2011 4:55 am

pelfdaddy wrote:I know this general concept is oft-addressed here, but the whole idea of a "bird" evolving wings suggests that creationists envisage the absurd idea of a beautiful parrot, complete with full plumage, claws, tropical paint scheme, a beak and a love for saltines, hopping about wingless in antipcipation of millions of years of eventual wing-building evolution. This entirely ignores the fact that the birds we now know evolved from creatures that were very different, evolving in a gradual manner virtually all of the recognizable features we now readily identify as "bird-like".


Something along these lines occurred to me, to. I started wondering, What the fuck do these cunts think a bird looked like before it had wings?
-Geoff Rogers

@Goldenmane3

http://goldenmane.onlineinfidels.com/
User avatar
Goldenmane
 
Posts: 2383

Print view this post

Re: Need help debunking

#20  Postby Calilasseia » Feb 06, 2011 5:16 am

And of course, there exist modern day organisms that exhibit the capacity for gliding flight without actual wings. Creatures such as sugar gliders of the Genus Petaurus (which have a loose membrane connected to their limbs, which acts as part parachute, part aerofoil, when the limbs are held outstretched), flying lizards of the Genus Draco (these use extensible ribs to form the aerofoil surface, and flattening of the limbs to provide directional control surfaces) and then there's the most remarkable of them all, the flying snakes of the Genus Chrysopelea. These snakes extend their ribs so that their bodies form a shape akin to a ribbon with an inverted 'U' cross section when gliding.

Some YouTube video clips are apposite here:

[1] Draco flying lizard and Chrysopelea flying snake (complete with typical American TV dumbed down commentary, sigh):

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLbkVanjHVU[/youtube]

[2] Chrysopelea flying snake - detailed analysis (with scientific paper citation at end of video):

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vhgC_g1cmU[/youtube]

Oh, and of course, there are numerous flying fishes to choose from ... off the top of my head, there are fishes from the taxonomic Families Pantodontidae, Gasteropelecidae and Exocoetidae that are capable of launching themselves into the air in a controlled manner, and controlling their airborne flight for the duration. Which simply serves to demonstrate that nature has found a number of interesting solutions to the problem of controlled airborne travel for a wide range of organisms, and didn't need magic to accomplish this. :)
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22631
Age: 62
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Next

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest