Evolution Deceit

@RedOct,

The video says that the universe has laws. Therefore, it has been planned and designed. He presents no evidence. It's a non sequitor fallacy; meaning the conclusion doens't follow the premise. Then the video states that life is complex. Therefore, it had a designer. That's another non sequitor. And that sums up part 1. I didn't bother to watch the rest.

0 Replies

Complexity comes from millions of years of "tinkering" and alteration. The same tired old arguments that have been refuted over and over again.

0 Replies

RedOct;65037 wrote:

1. Law of Entropy tells us that things left alone only worsen. A home left unattended for years will only deteriorate with time.

Entropy and Evolution

Entropy is NOT Disorder

As an aid for conceptualizing entropy, it is often described as a measurement of disorder. This is not intended as a definition of either entropy or disorder. Entropy is determined by the number of ways you could achieve a state, disorder is defined by the amount of violation of an ordering rule. The assignment "entropy is disorder" is intended to describe situations such as "the more space a gas takes up, the higher its entropy is, and the less you know about where all the molecules are (which in a casual sense means more disorder)". This conceptual link between entropy and disorder should not be interpreted as saying that increased disorder is increased entropy. An example of how entropy isn't disorder is that if you take a piece of glass, which is an amorphous material (one whose atoms are disordered), and place it in a fridge to cool it down, you will not change the atom locations. The glass remains just as disordered, but its entropy decreases as its temperature drops. In fact, in a very good fridge, the closer you brought it to absolute zero (-273.15 C or -459.67 F) to closer its entropy would become to zero. This would all happen without changing its structural disorder.
Entropy and Life

To argue that evolution is inconsistent with the second law of thermodynamics it is usually stated that evolution is a continual process of achieving higher order and design, which is against the second law. This is an argument based on casual definition of terms, rather than on quantification of order, design, and entropy. I hope that by this point it is reasonably clear that this argument actually has little if anything to do with the second law of thermodynamics. How would one propose to measure the relative order or design increase that would accompany any evolutionary step? What number represents the difference between standing erect and walking on all fours, between having only day vision and between having also developed night vision...? If we cannot answer such questions, then arguments about order and design will fall outside the realm of science.

To determine whether anything about the chemical processes of life violates the second law of thermodynamics requires looking at all the process on an individual basis. If there is no violation in the absorption of sunlight, or in any subsequent reactions, then there cannot be any violation of the second law as the net sum of such reactions (see the previous section on scaling). I am not personally aware of any such individual spots where the second law is violated. In fact, the second law is about as close as science comes to having sacrosanct laws. Any violations of this law that were discovered anywhere, no matter how small they were, would be very big news... I'm sure I would have heard of it.
Closing Remarks

RedOct;65037 wrote:

2. Darwin said that evolution is driven by NEED. Man always wanted to fly. Yet man invented machines to help him fly, but never grew feathers.

Really? Is that really you're 2nd best proof of creation?

1st. Do you know what evolutionary need is? Its survival...and there is no guaranty that because there is an evolutionary need that it will be met. If that were so then nothing would ever go extinct.

2nd. A Cat never gives birth to a Dog and no evolutionary biologist has ever made a statement to that effect. And No abiogenssis is not part of Darwinian evolution, it is an entirely different subject.

3rd. Humans, their want to fly is not on of any biological need, so why would it ever evolve. Flight is mental/emotional/cultural desire at best, not a need and giving their evolutionary advantages in intelligence its easier to make a flying machine than evolve functional wings.

RedOct;65037 wrote:

3. Time factor can be achieved by numbers too. Today, news from one corner of the planet spread to another within days, if not hours. Man has multiplied to dominate the planet, but never mutated.

Wat? This isn't even an argument against evolution and barely is sensical to begin with.

RedOct;65037 wrote:

4. In one experiment, rats tails were cut for 20 generations, yet they continued to be born with tails.

Wat again?

Really. I feel bad for ID'ers they have such little understanding of evolution you can't even be mad at them. They just find whatever outdated creationist propaganda that they can find just repost it every where.

Im sure soon a post will be made containing a biblical verse about non believers eye being blinded or something to that effect.

1 Reply

RedOct;65037 wrote:

1. Law of Entropy tells us that things left alone only worsen. A home left unattended for years will only deteriorate with time.

The earth is not an isolated system, entropy does not apply to evolution.

Quote:

2. Darwin said that evolution is driven by NEED. Man always wanted to fly. Yet man invented machines to help him fly, but never grew feathers.

And yet inability to fly or glide hinders our survival in no way.

Quote:

3. Time factor can be achieved by numbers too. Today, news from one corner of the planet spread to another within days, if not hours. Man has multiplied to dominate the planet, but never mutated.

The average person has about 150 mutations, they are subtle and the majority of which are benign. These however are not the mutations you see in movies.

Quote:

4. In one experiment, rats tails were cut for 20 generations, yet they continued to be born with tails.

How would that do anything? Cutting a rat's tail does not remove the genes that control the growth of tails. Does an amputee give birth to amputee children. Of course not nor is that the way natural selection works. Your ignorance of genetics is staggering.

0 Replies

RedOct;65060 wrote:

Grouch's writing is too long for me to read and replay, and I certainly don't want to be like Grouch (or Fatal Freedoms for that matter) to respond to something without viewing or reading. As to Fatal Freedoms, (1) earth is an isolated system, (2) if you were in danger, wouldn't it be nice to fly out of the harm's way, (3) I didn't dispute mutations -- dog changed to several breeds right before man, but it didn't acquire feathers or hoofs, (4) Darwin had argued that apendix was once a productive organ but due to it's lack of use, it, over time, became a small useless organ.

So you wont read things that might educate you because they are too long so you're just trolling ID garbage instead.

0 Replies

RedOct;65064 wrote:

Just like you Grouch.

Sir, you posted nothing but un-academic lies. There is nothing to learn. You yourself don't even understand what evolution, evolutionary need, or natural selection are.

Why don't you start over when you do.

0 Replies

@RedOct,

Ok that Evolution Deceit video is absolute crap. Its nothing more than the failed watchmaker argument. The system is complex thus there was a designer and thus it was Allah. That's the whole extent of it.

0 Replies

@RedOct,

RedOct;65027 wrote:

(1) earth is an isolated system,

No it isn't. We receive energy from the sun.

Quote:

(2) if you were in danger, wouldn't it be nice to fly out of the harm's way,

Natural selection doesn't work according to what's "nice". It would be nice to shoot lightning bolts out of my fingertips, and boy wouldn't that keep predators at bay, but that's not how it works. Evolution still has to work within limitations.

Quote:

(3) I didn't dispute mutations -- dog changed to several breeds right before man, but it didn't acquire feathers or hoofs,

And who says they should?

Quote:

(4) Darwin had argued that apendix was once a productive organ but due to it's lack of use, it, over time, became a small useless organ.

Did the appendix become useless (relatively) from our ancestors physically removing theirs by cutting it out? No. So why would you expect that cutting off rat tails would magically change the genetic make-up of a rat?

0 Replies

@Grouch,

Grouch;65039 wrote:

Wat? This isn't even an argument against evolution and barely is sensical to begin with.

If you look at it, he is *partially* correct. Man has manipulated Earth, however as such does not need to "mutate" (I don't think that means what he thinks it means) to fit it. We adjust things to fit us, whereas evolutionary biology will eventually manipulate the lifeform to fit the environment.

But if you look beyond silly things like "growing wings", you'll clearly see where man has mutated. CCR5D32 is an exceptional example of this. So are blue eyes and blonde hair (didja know that the first blondie was born ~10,000 years ago... genetic mutation of a single gene). Tetrachromacy is a mutation that has been observed... heck even our skin color is a mutation brought about by many years of selection and variation.

The trouble here is that these people who make these videos and such simply don't understand evolutionary biology. They've hit their intellectual glass ceiling as it were and cannot comprehend any further. A shame, really...

0 Replies

@RedOct,

If evolution had even a small bit of truth to it there would be many links. Up until now NO links have ever been found. None, Nada, Zilch. Darwin himself said that if the fossil record did not prove his theory in the future then his theory would not be true. Evolution has become a religon of it's own. Blind obedience to a creed that has no proof at all. Many atheist have rejected evolution because of the total impossibility of the theory and the evidence that disproves it. The theory does nothing but hinders the advance of science.

4 Replies

@RedOct,

"If evolution had even a small bit of truth to it there would be many links."

There are.

0 Replies

@gusto,

gusto;65145 wrote:

If evolution had even a small bit of truth to it there would be many links. Up until now NO links have ever been found. None, Nada, Zilch. Darwin himself said that if the fossil record did not prove his theory in the future then his theory would not be true. Evolution has become a religon of it's own. Blind obedience to a creed that has no proof at all. Many atheist have rejected evolution because of the total impossibility of the theory and the evidence that disproves it. The theory does nothing but hinders the advance of science.

dude, that's some of the most retarded, uninformed, idiotic **** I have ever read...

Have you ever picked up a Jr. High biology text book?

1 Reply

@gusto,

gusto;65145 wrote:

If evolution had even a small bit of truth to it there would be many links. Up until now NO links have ever been found. None, Nada, Zilch. Darwin himself said that if the fossil record did not prove his theory in the future then his theory would not be true. Evolution has become a religon of it's own. Blind obedience to a creed that has no proof at all. Many atheist have rejected evolution because of the total impossibility of the theory and the evidence that disproves it. The theory does nothing but hinders the advance of science.

You mean like the complete set of "links" making up the fish to tetrapod transition? You do realize that portion of the "line" is complete, correct?

Let's ask this, do you trust DNA and/or paternity testing? Would you accept insulin from a doctor? Perhaps a blood transfusion?

Didja know that evolutionary biology played a critical role in turning back the HIV virus in a patient recently? Did exactly what was expected, too.

However if you have "evidence that disproves it", by all means present it.

0 Replies

@gusto,

gusto;65145 wrote:

total impossibility of the theory and the evidence that disproves it.

Provide the evidence you claim disproves it.

I have seen so much evidence for evolution it is overwhelming.

Take your head out of your chosen deities book and look around you.

0 Replies

@gusto,

gusto;65145 wrote:

If evolution had even a small bit of truth to it there would be many links. Up until now NO links have ever been found. None, Nada, Zilch.

You're either lying or you're totally ignorant of fossils:

Wapedia - Wiki: List of transitional fossils

Quote:

Many atheist have rejected evolution because of the total impossibility of the theory and the evidence that disproves it. The theory does nothing but hinders the advance of science.

really? Name one.

1 Reply

@Grouch,

Grouch;65150 wrote:

dude, that's some of the most retarded, uninformed, idiotic **** I have ever read...

Have you ever picked up a Jr. High biology text book?

I hate to tell you this but very many of the top scientists in the world have now rejected evolution as a viable theory. Don't talk to me as if a high school biolgy text is the last word on modern scientific thought. There are very many reasons that prove evolution to be false. My example of links is just one. And it's a valid one at that. Every link that has been discovered has proven to be either false or in many cases a hoax. If you do not believe that, then give me just ONE example. If evolution is true there would be literally hundreds of billions of links in the fossil record. The evolutionists say that life was started just by chance. The discovery of DNA has destroyed that argument just by simple math. It has been figured out by using the simple math of odds that the chance of 1 medium sized protein being formed by chance is 1 in 10 to the power of 600. the estimated number of electrons in the entire universe is 10 to the power of 80.thats just a simple protein. We now know that a gene is required as a blueprint to build this protein and since they know all that goes into a gene now they can also calculate the odds of it happening by Chance. A simple protein has about 300 amino acids the DNA gene controlling the formation of this would have about 1000nucleotides in it's chain. since there are 4 kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain the number of different combonations would be 4 to the power of 1000 which equals 10 to the power of 600. these numbers point to the complete impossibility or Darwins theory on the origins of life. At the time Darwin formulated his theory scientists thought that a single cell was a very simple thing indeed. As science has progressed they have found that even a single cell organism is complex beyond calculation.
There are a lot of other scientific discoveries that disprove evolution but I'm not going to get into them just now. I will tell you this however that most of the leading evolutionists of today when faced with the facts say "the belief in evolution is a matter of faith". Evolution has ceased to be anything connected to science and has become for those who cannot face the facts a religion.

4 Replies

@gusto,

gusto;65230 wrote:

I hate to tell you this but very many of the top scientists in the world have now rejected evolution as a viable theory. Don't talk to me as if a high school biolgy text is the last word on modern scientific thought. There are very many reasons that prove evolution to be false. My example of links is just one. And it's a valid one at that. Every link that has been discovered has proven to be either false or in many cases a hoax. If you do not believe that, then give me just ONE example. If evolution is true there would be literally hundreds of billions of links in the fossil record. The evolutionists say that life was started just by chance. The discovery of DNA has destroyed that argument just by simple math. It has been figured out by using the simple math of odds that the chance of 1 medium sized protein being formed by chance is 1 in 10 to the power of 600. the estimated number of electrons in the entire universe is 10 to the power of 80.thats just a simple protein. We now know that a gene is required as a blueprint to build this protein and since they know all that goes into a gene now they can also calculate the odds of it happening by Chance. A simple protein has about 300 amino acids the DNA gene controlling the formation of this would have about 1000nucleotides in it's chain. since there are 4 kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain the number of different combonations would be 4 to the power of 1000 which equals 10 to the power of 600. these numbers point to the complete impossibility or Darwins theory on the origins of life. At the time Darwin formulated his theory scientists thought that a single cell was a very simple thing indeed. As science has progressed they have found that even a single cell organism is complex beyond calculation.
There are a lot of other scientific discoveries that disprove evolution but I'm not going to get into them just now. I will tell you this however that most of the leading evolutionists of today when faced with the facts say "the belief in evolution is a matter of faith". Evolution has ceased to be anything connected to science and has become for those who cannot face the facts a religion.

Clueless. Can you back what you said up as peer reviewed evidence?

1 Reply

@Numpty,

Numpty;65231 wrote:

Clueless. Can you back what you said up as peer reviewed evidence?

There are literally thousands of highly respected scientists that reject darwinism as a viable theory. If you want a list of them and if you truly would like to research the matter on your own I suggest a good place to start would be, evolution-facts.org
I doubt you will check it out because you probably don't want to know the truth about scientific fact that disproves what you have been told your entire life. I have one very intelligent son who is an atheist a scientist and a doctor. Even he,who has studied the evidence and has a PH.D in biology says to me. Dad, I know that the theory is false but what else do we have to believe in?

0 Replies

@gusto,

gusto;65230 wrote:

I hate to tell you this but very many of the top scientists in the world have now rejected evolution as a viable theory. Don't talk to me as if a high school biolgy text is the last word on modern scientific thought. There are very many reasons that prove evolution to be false. My example of links is just one. And it's a valid one at that. Every link that has been discovered has proven to be either false or in many cases a hoax. If you do not believe that, then give me just ONE example. If evolution is true there would be literally hundreds of billions of links in the fossil record. The evolutionists say that life was started just by chance. The discovery of DNA has destroyed that argument just by simple math. It has been figured out by using the simple math of odds that the chance of 1 medium sized protein being formed by chance is 1 in 10 to the power of 600. the estimated number of electrons in the entire universe is 10 to the power of 80.thats just a simple protein. We now know that a gene is required as a blueprint to build this protein and since they know all that goes into a gene now they can also calculate the odds of it happening by Chance. A simple protein has about 300 amino acids the DNA gene controlling the formation of this would have about 1000nucleotides in it's chain. since there are 4 kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain the number of different combonations would be 4 to the power of 1000 which equals 10 to the power of 600. these numbers point to the complete impossibility or Darwins theory on the origins of life. At the time Darwin formulated his theory scientists thought that a single cell was a very simple thing indeed. As science has progressed they have found that even a single cell organism is complex beyond calculation.
There are a lot of other scientific discoveries that disprove evolution but I'm not going to get into them just now. I will tell you this however that most of the leading evolutionists of today when faced with the facts say "the belief in evolution is a matter of faith". Evolution has ceased to be anything connected to science and has become for those who cannot face the facts a religion.

You know I would read what you just wrote. And I could disprove every last letter of it. But what bother? You're too much of an intellectual coward to look at the new information presented to you and produce a reasoned and supported counter argument.

You're an ignorant, lying waste of time.

Damn it I accidentally read some.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

where is your god now?

0 Replies

Evolution Deceit

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know