Evolution is a False Religion not Proven Science.

[alang1216]

It makes no sense because the odds of molecules randomly forming amino acids and proteins are almost infinity - 1.

The math means evolution is impossible

Except it has already been done:

The Miller–Urey experiment[1] (or Urey–Miller experiment)[2] was an experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life. Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized more complex organic compounds from simpler organic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment investigating abiogenesis, it was conducted in 1953[3] by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago and later the University of California, San Diego and published the following year.[4][5][6]
After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.[7] Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the Miller–Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules.[8]

Do you not know how many amino acids make up a single protein?

You think its by chance that amino acids arrange themselves into a perfectly functioning protein?

And how many proteins make up a single cell

The odds are calculable but so large as to might as well be infinite

The question is what is the smallest organic molecule or combination of molecules that can be considered to be life? While cells are certainly alive I believe even a single molecule can be just as alive. My definition of life only requires that a molecule can replicate itself, not an impossible or unknown capability. Once that molecule can replicate it becomes subject to the laws of evolution and viola, us. After trillions of generations of course.

 

[Agit8r]

The story has been told of a person who went back to his university professor many years after completing his degree in Economics. He asked to look at the test questions they were now using. He was surprised to see that they were virtually the same questions he was asked when he was a student. The lecturer then said that although the questions were the same the answers are were entirely different!

I once debated with a geology professor from an American University on a radio program. He said that evolution was real science because evolutionists were prepared to continually change their theories as they found new data. He said that creation was not science because a creationist's views were set by the Bible and, therefore, were not subject to change.

I answered, "The reason scientific theories change is because we don't know everything, isn't it? We don't have all the evidence."
"Yes, that's right," he said.
I replied, "But, we will never know everything."
"That's true," he answered.
I then stated, "We will always continue to find new evidence."
"Quite correct," he said. I replied, "That means we can't be sure about anything."
"Right," he said.
"That means we can't be sure about evolution."
"Oh, no! Evolution is a fact," he blurted out. He was caught by his own logic. He was demonstrating how his view was determined by his bias.

Models of science are subject to change for both creationists and evolutionists. But the beliefs that these models are built on are not.

The problem is that most scientists do not realize that it is the belief (or religion) of evolution that is the basis for the scientific models (the interpretations, or stories) used to attempt an explanation of the present. Evolutionists are not prepared to change their actual belief that all life can be explained by natural processes and that no God is involved (or even needed). Evolution is the religion to which they are committed. Christians need to wake up to this. Evolution is a religion; it is not a science!
Evolution is Religion

Did you know that the word "evolution" existed before Darwin's theory? It's because evolution is a matter of fact.

 

[pinqy]

???....you have another version?.....

There are many different theories. En.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
None of them involve the spontaneous creation of life.

????.....if you use the commonly understood meanings of the words "spontaneous" and "life" there is no other way to describe it.......you are arguing that life just happened under circumstances which cannot be explained in scientific terms......they ALL involve the spontaneous creation of life.....

A long process over millions of years with many many intermediate steps is hardly "spontaneous" in any use of the word. Nor is it "bumping," nor is it random.

 

[pinqy]

no......not a requirement......I can believe 37k types of beetles evolved without believing the first beetle was a worm......

No one else believes that either.

/sigh......why do you folks always deflect instead of debate?.......worm, sludge, single celled organism.....wtf difference does it make.....you believe something which violates the scientific method...deal with it......

Actually, it makes a big difference. And if you don't understand the difference, or do understand the difference and purpsefully use an inaccurate example, then there's no debating.

I note that you have not addressed my earlier post on Genesis 30, which offers a direct, testable, experiment between the claims of Evolution and the Bible. Care to give it a shot?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Take random car parts from a junkyard and put them in a room, shake the room once a second, how many seconds will it take to have a perfectly functioning car?

The average car contain about 2,000 separate parts, which include the engine

 

[alang1216]

Take random car parts from a junkyard and put them in a room, shake the room once a second, how many seconds will it take to have a perfectly functioning car?

The average car contain about 2,000 separate parts, which include the engine

A car is a poor example since neither evolution nor God created one.

A better example would be the proverbial monkeys on a typewriter composing Hamlet. Assuming the monkeys randomly generated letters of the alphabet how long would it take to write Hamlet? Never going to happen but that's not evolution. Evolution requires a selection pressure. If someone compared what the monkeys typed with Shakespere and removed anything the monkeys typed that wasn't in the original how long would it take for the monkeys to write Hamlet. Not long at all.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Take random car parts from a junkyard and put them in a room, shake the room once a second, how many seconds will it take to have a perfectly functioning car?

The average car contain about 2,000 separate parts, which include the engine

A car is a poor example since neither evolution nor God created one.

A better example would be the proverbial monkeys on a typewriter composing Hamlet. Assuming the monkeys randomly generated letters of the alphabet how long would it take to write Hamlet? Never going to happen but that's not evolution. Evolution requires a selection pressure. If someone compared what the monkeys typed with Shakespere and removed anything the monkeys typed that wasn't in the original how long would it take for the monkeys to write Hamlet. Not long at all.

The odds of perfectly assembling 2,000 parts with the engine counting as a part are 3.3*10E5735.

That's a number with 5,735 zero's after it

And not counting the parts which like proteins are separately assembled

 

[PratchettFan]

It makes no sense because the odds of molecules randomly forming amino acids and proteins are almost infinity - 1.

The math means evolution is impossible

An interesting take, except it begins with an unsupported assumption and ignores reality entirely. But let us take your reasoning:

There are 118 known elements. That is infinity (the potential number of elements) - 118, which is pretty much the same thing as infinity - 1. So the math means that elements are impossible. All we have to do is ignore the fact they exist.

try this instead:

average number of amino acids that much be perfectly arranged to make a single protein

average number of proteins that must be arranged perfectly to make a functioning cell

like I said, it's a number, but it a number with far more zeros than there are subatomic particles in the known universe

The exact same thing could be said about an atom of gold. Does that mean gold does not exist?

Amino acids exist. Proteins exist. Life exists. Evolution happens. We can dispute causation since none of us know how it all got started, but to say it must have happened this way rather than that because of probability makes no sense at all. You have nothing upon which to base your assumptions than more assumptions.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Take random car parts from a junkyard and put them in a room, shake the room once a second, how many seconds will it take to have a perfectly functioning car?

The average car contain about 2,000 separate parts, which include the engine

A car is a poor example since neither evolution nor God created one.

A better example would be the proverbial monkeys on a typewriter composing Hamlet. Assuming the monkeys randomly generated letters of the alphabet how long would it take to write Hamlet? Never going to happen but that's not evolution. Evolution requires a selection pressure. If someone compared what the monkeys typed with Shakespere and removed anything the monkeys typed that wasn't in the original how long would it take for the monkeys to write Hamlet. Not long at all.

What's doing the selection in assembling the first cell??????????

 

[PratchettFan]

Take random car parts from a junkyard and put them in a room, shake the room once a second, how many seconds will it take to have a perfectly functioning car?

The average car contain about 2,000 separate parts, which include the engine

A car is a poor example since neither evolution nor God created one.

A better example would be the proverbial monkeys on a typewriter composing Hamlet. Assuming the monkeys randomly generated letters of the alphabet how long would it take to write Hamlet? Never going to happen but that's not evolution. Evolution requires a selection pressure. If someone compared what the monkeys typed with Shakespere and removed anything the monkeys typed that wasn't in the original how long would it take for the monkeys to write Hamlet. Not long at all.

What's doing the selection is assembling the first cell??????????

We don't know.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

An interesting take, except it begins with an unsupported assumption and ignores reality entirely. But let us take your reasoning:

There are 118 known elements. That is infinity (the potential number of elements) - 118, which is pretty much the same thing as infinity - 1. So the math means that elements are impossible. All we have to do is ignore the fact they exist.

try this instead:

average number of amino acids that much be perfectly arranged to make a single protein

average number of proteins that must be arranged perfectly to make a functioning cell

like I said, it's a number, but it a number with far more zeros than there are subatomic particles in the known universe

The exact same thing could be said about an atom of gold. Does that mean gold does not exist?

Amino acids exist. Proteins exist. Life exists. Evolution happens. We can dispute causation since none of us know how it all got started, but to say it must have happened this way rather than that because of probability makes no sense at all. You have nothing upon which to base your assumptions than more assumptions.

Post hoc ergo...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A car is a poor example since neither evolution nor God created one.

A better example would be the proverbial monkeys on a typewriter composing Hamlet. Assuming the monkeys randomly generated letters of the alphabet how long would it take to write Hamlet? Never going to happen but that's not evolution. Evolution requires a selection pressure. If someone compared what the monkeys typed with Shakespere and removed anything the monkeys typed that wasn't in the original how long would it take for the monkeys to write Hamlet. Not long at all.

What's doing the selection is assembling the first cell??????????

We don't know.

You meant to say "I don't know"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Except it has already been done:

The Miller–Urey experiment[1] (or Urey–Miller experiment)[2] was an experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life. Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized more complex organic compounds from simpler organic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment investigating abiogenesis, it was conducted in 1953[3] by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago and later the University of California, San Diego and published the following year.[4][5][6]
After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.[7] Moreover, some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the Miller–Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen (N2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules.[8]

Do you not know how many amino acids make up a single protein?

You think its by chance that amino acids arrange themselves into a perfectly functioning protein?

And how many proteins make up a single cell

The odds are calculable but so large as to might as well be infinite

The question is what is the smallest organic molecule or combination of molecules that can be considered to be life? While cells are certainly alive I believe even a single molecule can be just as alive. My definition of life only requires that a molecule can replicate itself, not an impossible or unknown capability. Once that molecule can replicate it becomes subject to the laws of evolution and viola, us. After trillions of generations of course.

You see from the above that trillions is only 15 zeroes out of 5735

 

[Zmrzlina]

you may breed dogs for color,size and see change over the years in color ,size and such (micro)but you will never see the dog change into a cat.)macro) no matter how much time.

No shit, you don't understand evolutionary biology.

/shrugs.....actually if you limit it to what science says about evolutionary biology he may know than you do........

How postmodern of you.

 

[GreenBean]

PLAN,DESIGN,COMPLEXITY DO NOT EVOLVE FROM POND SCUM.

Dissolve sugar in water, suspend a string in it, and then let the water evaporate. If you look closely at the result you'll find trillions of individual sugar molecules have arranged themselves according to a plan. No intelligent designer required.

OH!!!!!!!!! YOU SEE NO PLAN NO DESIGN??? OPEN YOUR EYES!!! TRY TO THINK!! wow!

The theory is called Intelligent Design and it is perfectly in line with Creationism and evolutionary theory if you simply grasp the TIME element . The Biblical Creation Story is correct but written for a scientifically illiterate and primitive people - somewhat like trying to explain complex theories both political and scientific to Liberals - primitive thinkers.

 

[PratchettFan]

try this instead:

average number of amino acids that much be perfectly arranged to make a single protein

average number of proteins that must be arranged perfectly to make a functioning cell

like I said, it's a number, but it a number with far more zeros than there are subatomic particles in the known universe

The exact same thing could be said about an atom of gold. Does that mean gold does not exist?

Amino acids exist. Proteins exist. Life exists. Evolution happens. We can dispute causation since none of us know how it all got started, but to say it must have happened this way rather than that because of probability makes no sense at all. You have nothing upon which to base your assumptions than more assumptions.

Post hoc ergo...

Yes. That is what I was saying.

 

[PratchettFan]

What's doing the selection is assembling the first cell??????????

We don't know.

You meant to say "I don't know"

Nope. I meant "we". Unless you have some hard evidence you haven't presented yet.

 

[GISMYS]

Paul said that the wrath of God comes against those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. How can he justify his statement that there are those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness? He says that God has made Himself evident to them. How can Paul say that God has made Himself evident to them? He says because that which is known about God is made obvious to them through the things that He has made. Paul uses the argument from design. He says that since we see obviously created objects we must know that there is a Designer/Maker. Paul argues that evolutionists are without excuse, reason, or defense. Paul says that they blindly hold fast to their beliefs in spite of the evidence to the contrary. In counter argument Paul points out that Christians have an evidence based faith. Christians have an excuse, reason and defense. Paul presses his argument further to point out that those who are evolutionists become futile in their speculations, in their fable telling. Their hearts, their spirits, become darkened. They claim wisdom and knowledge that they do not have. They invent stories which they cannot support. They build a house of cards trying to defend their position. Their stories are plausible and logical, but all things that are plausible and all things that are logical are not necessarily true. Paul writes that those who accept evolutionism are fools. Today the word "fools" is not necessarily a strong word. Even the most intelligent person might make a foolish mistake now and then. If you drive up to a street corner and turn right when you should have turned left, it might be said that you did something foolish. But, that is not the word Paul used 2,000 years ago. In Greek, Paul wrote that those who accept evolutionism are "morons." A more modern translation would be that they become idiots. Those are harsh words, indeed. How can Paul justify such harsh rhetoric? He says it because those who knowingly reject the truth of Gods existence have exchanged the worship of the One true Creator for the worship of those things which He has created. They worship trees and animals instead of God. They have exchanged the truth of God for a lie. If you exchange a lie for the truth, that is a good idea. If you exchange the truth for a lie, that is a bad idea. Paul declares in no uncertain terms that those who accept evolution have exchanged the truth for a lie. They have made an obviously poor decision - See more at: Creation Worldview Ministries: Is the earth 4,600,000,000 years old? Or, is the earth only 2,191,000 days (6,000 years) old?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dissolve sugar in water, suspend a string in it, and then let the water evaporate. If you look closely at the result you'll find trillions of individual sugar molecules have arranged themselves according to a plan. No intelligent designer required.

OH!!!!!!!!! YOU SEE NO PLAN NO DESIGN??? OPEN YOUR EYES!!! TRY TO THINK!! wow!

The theory is called Intelligent Design and it is perfectly in line with Creationism and evolutionary theory if you simply grasp the TIME element . The Biblical Creation Story is correct but written for a scientifically illiterate and primitive people - somewhat like trying to explain complex theories both political and scientific to Liberals - primitive thinkers.

I always knew that the Bible is not meant to be taken literally and thanks to Kabbalah now it all makes sense

 

[PratchettFan]

Paul said that the wrath of God comes against those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. How can he justify his statement that there are those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness? He says that God has made Himself evident to them. How can Paul say that God has made Himself evident to them? He says because that which is known about God is made obvious to them through the things that He has made. Paul uses the argument from design. He says that since we see obviously created objects we must know that there is a Designer/Maker. Paul argues that evolutionists are without excuse, reason, or defense. Paul says that they blindly hold fast to their beliefs in spite of the evidence to the contrary. In counter argument Paul points out that Christians have an evidence based faith. Christians have an excuse, reason and defense. Paul presses his argument further to point out that those who are evolutionists become futile in their speculations, in their fable telling. Their hearts, their spirits, become darkened. They claim wisdom and knowledge that they do not have. They invent stories which they cannot support. They build a house of cards trying to defend their position. Their stories are plausible and logical, but all things that are plausible and all things that are logical are not necessarily true. Paul writes that those who accept evolutionism are fools. Today the word "fools" is not necessarily a strong word. Even the most intelligent person might make a foolish mistake now and then. If you drive up to a street corner and turn right when you should have turned left, it might be said that you did something foolish. But, that is not the word Paul used 2,000 years ago. In Greek, Paul wrote that those who accept evolutionism are "morons." A more modern translation would be that they become idiots. Those are harsh words, indeed. How can Paul justify such harsh rhetoric? He says it because those who knowingly reject the truth of Gods existence have exchanged the worship of the One true Creator for the worship of those things which He has created. They worship trees and animals instead of God. They have exchanged the truth of God for a lie. If you exchange a lie for the truth, that is a good idea. If you exchange the truth for a lie, that is a bad idea. Paul declares in no uncertain terms that those who accept evolution have exchanged the truth for a lie. They have made an obviously poor decision - See more at: Creation Worldview Ministries: Is the earth 4,600,000,000 years old? Or, is the earth only 2,191,000 days (6,000 years) old?

You are taking this from a book. God does not write in books. That is what humans do.