The Theory of Evolution - Part 1

[bob b]

The Theory of Evolution - Part 1. Life Happens

According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals had to combine to form Frankencell, which came to life somehow. (Presumably, a lightning bolt and a deformed assistant were involved.)

The February 1988 issue of EARTH magazine is a special issue on Origins. The cover promises an article that will tell us "How Life Really Began". The article itself, however, says that scientists just don't know. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, states in that article that the origin of life is still unknown.

There are only two documented cases of inanimate objects coming to life.

1. Pinocchio
2. Frosty the Snowman

Most scientists consider these two reports to be false.

The notion that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.

(Ref: Science Is Against Evolution)

 

[Shalom]

There are only two documented cases of inanimate objects coming to life.

1. Pinocchio
2. Frosty the Snowman

Most scientists consider these two reports to be false.

bob b you are awesome!!! :chuckle:


:cheers:

 

[hatsoff]

The Theory of Evolution - Part 1. Life Happens

According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe

The first of several errors. The theory of evolution does not say much about the universe, and certainly not that there was "no life" at any point in time, much less the distant past.

Perhaps Bob B should refer us to his definition of the "theory of evolution."

-- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals had to combine to form Frankencell, which came to life somehow. (Presumably, a lightning bolt and a deformed assistant were involved.)

This is possibly a weak attempt at lighthearted humor, but more likely a nasty manifestation of his contempt for some of evolution's concepts.

The February 1988 issue of EARTH magazine is a special issue on Origins. The cover promises an article that will tell us "How Life Really Began".

And in 1993 Newsweek's boldface cover read "Gay Gene?" Yes, we all know most magazines are notoriously unreliable.

The article itself, however, says that scientists just don't know. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, states in that article that the origin of life is still unknown.

But you dispute this. You seem to know exactly where life came from. The problem is, of course, that you're mistaken. What you think you know is actually false.

There are only two documented cases of inanimate objects coming to life.

1. Pinocchio
2. Frosty the Snowman

Most scientists consider these two reports to be false.

Most scientists also consider creationalism to be false. The ratios are similar, in all three cases.

The notion that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.

Not direct scientific observation, no. But observation is not limited to the direct.

(Ref: Science Is Against Evolution)

No, it is not.

 

[avatar382]

The Theory of Evolution - Part 1. Life Happens

According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals had to combine to form Frankencell, which came to life somehow. (Presumably, a lightning bolt and a deformed assistant were involved.)

The February 1988 issue of EARTH magazine is a special issue on Origins. The cover promises an article that will tell us "How Life Really Began". The article itself, however, says that scientists just don't know. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, states in that article that the origin of life is still unknown.

There are only two documented cases of inanimate objects coming to life.

1. Pinocchio
2. Frosty the Snowman

Most scientists consider these two reports to be false.

The notion that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.

(Ref: Science Is Against Evolution)

Bob, abiogensis is beyond the scope of the theory of evolution. You are right, science does not know how life arised from non-life. Maybe science will never know.

But, this has precisely zilch to do with the theory of evolution. Simple as that.

 

[Johnny]

According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds.

And you're starting to look more and more like pinocchio as the lies continue. You know the statement I quoted is downright dishonest and incorrect, why did you post it?

 

[Lord Vader]

I think the biggest problem I see are people believing what they hear because they want to and not because they have good reasons (like having a mastery of the subject). What I would teach my children is, know the difference between what you really know and what you really do not know. So it's a mistake to believe a creationist just because you've got some beef with scientists or athiests or democrats or whatever and it's a mistake to believe a biologist, when you don't understand what the biologist has just said, just because you think creationists are flat earth nutters.

 

[Letsargue]

I think the biggest problem I see are people believing what they hear because they want to and not because they have good reasons (like having a mastery of the subject). What I would teach my children is, know the difference between what you really know and what you really do not know. So it's a mistake to believe a creationist just because you've got some beef with scientists or athiests or democrats or whatever and it's a mistake to believe a biologist, when you don't understand what the biologist has just said, just because you think creationists are flat earth nutters.

---WOOW, -- THAT WAS SMART, What wisdom?? --- ""What you really know, and what you really don't know""????. HOW DO ((( YOU ))) KNOW, THAT YOU KNOW ANYTHING, without guessing. -- guess you have no idea, but you'll run your mouth anyhow like the rest of the fools do.
*
------------------Paul---
*

 

[bob b]

The Theory of Evolution - Part 2 Creative Mutations

Creative Mutations
Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. One does not expect a lizard to hatch from a chicken egg. Chickens have baby chickens. It is established scientific fact that like begets like.

On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Only a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are arguably beneficial. It is well known that mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.

It is claimed that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals

a) scales had to have mutated into hair
b) breasts had to have evolved from nothing
c) hard-shelled externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb
etc.

None of these transformations have ever been observed in a laboratory.


The notion that random genetic changes can produce creative mutations is not consistent with scientific observation. (Not to mention "The Protein Folding Problem", RBB).

(Thanks again to the Science Against Evolution website)

 

[hatsoff]

So Bob B has been reduced to the likes of Chandru, Letsargue and James Hartline. Announce, but do not discuss--in other words, spam.

The Theory of Evolution - Part 2 Creative Mutations

Creative Mutations
Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. One does not expect a lizard to hatch from a chicken egg. Chickens have baby chickens. It is established scientific fact that like begets like.

On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Only a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are arguably beneficial. It is well known that mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.

Again, this is simply wrong. Here the author is arguing that there "must be" one thing or another, but in truth all that "must be" is the outcome--that is, the evolution of species. The process by which that outcome has been achieved is largely unknown, although much speculated.

It is claimed that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented.

It is? Where?

But for reptiles to evolve into mammals

a) scales had to have mutated into hair
b) breasts had to have evolved from nothing
c) hard-shelled externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb
etc.

This all assumes mammilian lineage derives from reptilian. While a seemingly natural assumption, I've never seen it proven.

None of these transformations have ever been observed in a laboratory.

And very likely none ever will.

The notion that random genetic changes can produce creative mutations is not consistent with scientific observation. (Not to mention "The Protein Folding Problem", RBB).

Again, we have the proof: Species existed, they changed, and new species sprang up. This has been observed, through studying history and the fossil record. That the mechanisms behind the changes have not been explained does not mean that they never happened, or are unexplainable. We simply need to keep at it.

(Thanks again to the Science Against Evolution website)

Cutting and pasting, are we? That would explain a good deal.

 

[Johnny]

"According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe"

That's a lie. The theory of evolution claims no such thing. Bob b, do you agree with this statement?

bob b you are awesome!!!

Sad. You just praised a poster who shamelessly posted a blatant lie.

 

[bob b]

"According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe"

That's a lie. The theory of evolution claims no such thing. Bob b, do you agree with this statement?

Sad. You just praised a poster who shamelessly posted a blatant lie.

Evolutionists like to extrapolate backwards all the way to some hypothetical primitive creature.

But then they stop. Why is that? Certainly not for lack of boldness, otherwise why would they have extrapolated so far back?

At least Darwin was honest enough to take a shot at it. Today's evolutionists try to escape the inevitable by claiming they don't have to explain the inevitable consequence of their "half a loaf".

They are in the same position as the cosmologists who extrapolate an expanding universe all the way back to zero time, and then wonder why nobody believes them. :doh:

 

[SUTG]

bob b,

I'm wondering if anyone can try harder to intentionally misunderstand the Theory of Evolution than you have. You've started numerous threads on the ToE that have exhibited gross misunderstandings of basic principles that would be covered in a first semester Biology class. What are you trying to accomplish? Do you think that if you misrepresent the theory enough, no-one will bother to learn the real theory? Are you really that in the dark about what the theory says? There are plenty of resouces available if you want to understand it.

 

[bob b]

bob b,

I'm wondering if anyone can try harder to intentionally misunderstand the Theory of Evolution than you have. You've started numerous threads on the ToE that have exhibited gross misunderstandings of basic principles that would be covered in a first semester Biology class. What are you trying to accomplish? Do you think that if you misrepresent the theory enough, no-one will bother to learn the real theory? Are you really that in the dark about what the theory says? There are plenty of resouces available if you want to understand it.

The reason that nobody can understand what the theory says is apparently because it says everything and nothing in equal measure. Therefore if anybody disagrees with it they can always be accused of being stupid or ignorant or both. (or wicked?) :wave:

 

[bob b]

Everybody hold their nose now, here comes part 3
Theory of Evolution Part 3Lots of Time
Sadly, it is well known that living things can die. This has often been observed. It has NOT been scientifically demonstrated that a dead thing can come to life. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, something dead will come to life by some method or another.

It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some critters will eventually evolve into other critters.

Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. It is extremely improbable that you can toss a coin and have it come up heads 100 times in a row. But if you toss coins long enough, eventually it will happen. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.

If we observe present processes, and make the assumption that they have have been going on at the same rate since they started, we generally come to the conclusion that the Earth could not be billions of years old. Some of the processes that have been studied that give young ages for the Earth are:

Continental erosion
Sea floor sediments
Salinity of the oceans
Helium in the atmosphere
Carbon 14 in the atmosphere
Decay of the Earth's magnetic field

The old ages for the Earth come primarily from the ages of rocks, which are dated by the presumed ages of the fossils in them. Radioactive measurements of rocks are based on assumptions that were chosen to make the radioactive measurements agree with the presumed ages of the fossils.

The eruption of Mount St. Helens produced many feet of stratified rocks which look millions of years old, but were produced in days or hours. Radioactive measurements of these rocks show them to be millions of years old, too. But we know they were formed in 1980 because scientists saw them formed.

The notion that the Earth is billions of years old is not consistent with a considerable amount of scientific observation.

Conclusion
The theory of evolution is not believed because of scientific evidence. It is believed DESPITE scientific evidence. Science is against the theory of evolution.

 

[Shalom]

The reason that nobody can understand what the theory says is apparently because it says everything and nothing in equal measure. Therefore if anybody disagrees with it they can always be accused of being stupid or ignorant or both. (or wicked?) :wave:

ahh jeeeez bob b you just too darn good!!! :thumb:

 

[SUTG]

The reason that nobody can understand what the theory says is apparently because it says everything and nothing in equal measure.

Lots of other people seem to understand it just fine. You're the one that doesn't get it. Why don't you take Jukia's advice and enroll in an elementary biology class? There are plenty of posters here that could help you study for exams. (Johnny, aharvey, Jukia, etc..) I might even contribute a bit - it is well known you could stand to brush up on probabilities a bit.

 

[bowhunter]

"But you dispute this. You seem to know exactly where life came from. The problem is, of course, that you're mistaken. What you think you know is actually false."

Ok, the guy says, that what Bob THINKS he knows is actually false. The same guy states that they do not know how it all started. HMMMM. He doesn't know, yet he knows that only ONE of them is false. Interesting, very interesting.

 

[bowhunter]

Bob,

Correct me if I'm wrong, in order for some program to work, it must first exist. Is that correct?

Also, are you saying the toe is complex like the tax code?

 

[bob b]

Bob,

Correct me if I'm wrong, in order for some program to work, it must first exist. Is that correct?

You can't use logic on an evolutionist.

Also, are you saying the toe is complex like the tax code?

And just as illogical.

 

[bowhunter]

"You can't use logic on an evolutionist."

Oh yeah, I forgot. BTW, they don't even realize what you are doing to them here.