4
   

Stuff which evolosers can't handle

 
 
Reply Sun 4 Jan, 2015 09:36 pm
http://www.conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Evolution


Quote:

The theory of evolution does not permit the existence of any counterexamples. If any one of the 49 counterexamples listed below is correct, then the theory of evolution fails. Moreover, even if there is merely a 10% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that[2]), then the probability that the theory of evolution is true is less than 1%......

 
CalamityJane
 
  4  
Reply Sun 4 Jan, 2015 09:52 pm
@gungasnake,
That's all a bunch of baloney, to put it mildly.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Jan, 2015 11:18 pm
@CalamityJane,
The educated lay person is not aware of how overwhelmingly evolution has been debunked over the last century.

The following is a minimal list of entire categories of evidence disproving evolution:

The decades-long experiments with fruit flies beginning in the early 1900s. Those tests were intended to demonstrate macroevolution; the failure of those tests was so unambiguous that a number of prominent scientists disavowed evolution at the time.

The discovery of the DNA/RNA info codes (information codes do not just sort of happen...)

The fact that the info code explained the failure of the fruit-fly experiments (the whole thing is driven by information and the only info there ever was in that picture was the info for a fruit fly...)

The discovery of bio-electrical machinery within 1-celled animals.

The question of irreducible complexity.

The Haldane Dilemma. That is, the gigantic spaces of time it would take to spread any genetic change through an entire herd of animals.

The increasingly massive evidence of a recent age for dinosaurs. This includes soft tissue being found in dinosaur remains, good radiocarbon dates for dinosaur remains (blind tests at the University of Georgia's dating lab), and native American petroglyphs clearly showing known dinosaur types.

The fact that the Haldane dilemma and the recent findings related to dinosaurs amount to a sort of a time sandwich (evolutionites need quadrillions of years and only have a few tens of thousands).

The dna analysis eliminating neanderthals and thus all other hominids as plausible human ancestors.

The total lack of intermediate fossils where the theory demands that the bulk of all fossils be clear intermediate types. "Punctuated Equilibria" in fact amounts to an attempt to get around both the Haldane dilemma and the lack of intermediate fossils, but has an entirely new set of overwhelming problems of its own...

The question of genetic entropy.

The obvious evidence of design in nature.

The arguments arising from pure probability and combinatoric considerations.


Here's what I mean when I use the term "combinatoric considerations"...

The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.

Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, the specialized system which allows flight feathers to pivot so as to open on upstrokes and close to trap air on downstrokes (like a venetian blind), a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.

For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.

In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.

All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.

And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.

Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.

I ask you: What could be stupider than that?


FBM
 
  2  
Reply Sun 4 Jan, 2015 11:42 pm
@gungasnake,
All that creationist tripe has been refuted over and over again. If you're too immersed in denialism to understand it, that's your problem. Wishing it away doesn't work:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2015 12:31 am
@FBM,
Anybody trying to cite talk.origins as a source on origins discussions is an idiot.
FBM
 
  3  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2015 01:37 am
@gungasnake,
Not as bad as anyone who would argue against evolution. TalkOrigins cites sources. They don't just pull ridiculous crap out of their ass.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2015 01:51 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Anybody trying to cite talk.origins as a source on origins discussions is an idiot.


Yeah, and people who cite conservapedia are real geniuses.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2015 04:35 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

The educated lay person is not aware of how overwhelmingly evolution has been debunked over the last century.


The educated lay person is fully aware that's total bollocks. Uneducated idiots like you lap it up though.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2015 06:46 am
Sooner or later I put hate mongers on ignore. in the case of izzythePOOP it just took a bit longer than usual...
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2015 07:14 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Sooner or later I put hate mongers on ignore.


You really don't get irony. You're one of the biggest, if not the biggest hatemonger on A2K. A quick perusal of your posts on the Moslem threads confirms as much, as does your use of the phrase 'evoloser,' your monumental racism towards your own president, your hatred of democracy and slavish devotion to Vladimir Putin. Let's not forget the disgraceful lies and fascist propaganda you spout about the Srebrenica massacre.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2015 08:37 am
@gungasnake,
afraid of real science eh?

Lets take any one of those above "areas" and debate them. I trust you will find that there is ample evidence to support science.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2015 09:38 am
@gungasnake,
This is all old stuff that has been debunked many many times before. Don't you have anything new?
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2015 04:20 pm
Beg pardon for recycling, but:

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/20131106-144155.jpg
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Stuff which evolosers can't handle
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/29/2023 at 03:57:43