The Scientific Impossibility of Evolution

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: charlyv

Crystals show the evidence of order from chaos, and how life may have been the next step.

They show self-organization in the right conditions and take on the geometric forms of the atoms in the molecules that comprise them.

Not all crystals form in water. Some crystals can be formed in an element named carbon. Nevertheless, all crystal form the same way, atoms come together and become a uniformed cluster.

Sciencing

The origin of life, and it's design are most likely hidden in the world of sub-atomic particles, just like crystals.

edit on 28-6-2019 by charlyv because: spelling , where caught

originally posted by: whereislogic

Is evolution a scientific fact? No.

If not a fact, what is it? A religious “faith”? A philosophy/idea or set of philosophies/ideas?

Evolution “is also being questioned by reputable scientists”.

‘Unbelievers are uninformed, unreasonable, irresponsible, incompetent, ignorant, dogmatic, enslaved by old illusions and prejudices.’ In these ways leading evolutionists describe those who do not accept evolution as a fact. However, cool, logical, scientific reasoning, backed by observational and experimental evidence, need not resort to such personal invective.

The position of the evolutionists is more characteristic of religious dogmatism. When the chief priests and Pharisees saw the crowds accepting Jesus, they sent officers to arrest him, with this result: “The Temple police who had been sent to arrest him returned to the chief priests and Pharisees. ‘Why didn’t you bring him in?’ they demanded. ‘He says such wonderful things!’ they mumbled. ‘We’ve never heard anything like it.’ ‘So you also have been led astray?’ the Pharisees mocked. ‘Is there a single one of us Jewish rulers or Pharisees who believes he is the Messiah? These stupid crowds do, yes; but what do they know about it? A curse upon them anyway!”’​—John 7:32, 45-49, The Living Bible.

They were wrong, for evidence proves that many of the rulers were being affected by Jesus’ teaching. Even individual priests became his followers. (John 12:42; Acts 6:7; 15:5) Unable to refute Jesus, the Pharisees as a group resorted to tyranny of authority. Today evolutionists adopt the same tactics: ‘Stupid crowds, what do they know? All reputable scientists accept evolution!’ Not so. As Discover magazine said: “Now that hallowed theory is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists.”​—October 1980.

Writing in Science, R. E. Gibson said that Galileo possessed “a passionate antagonism to any kind of dogma based on human authority.” It was his intellectual integrity that got him into trouble with the Inquisition. But such integrity, Gibson asserts, “is not fashionable now; the present tendency is for the scientific community, now grown powerful, to behave much as the church did in Galileo’s time.” Is modern science handling power and prestige any better than the Catholic Church did? Einstein once remarked that we are not as far removed from Galileo’s time as we would like to think.​—Science, September 18, 1964, pp. 1271-1276.

Robert Jastrow refers to “the religious faith of the scientist” and his irritation when the evidence doesn’t match his beliefs. J. N. W. Sullivan calls belief in spontaneous generation “an article of faith,” and T. H. Huxley said it was “an act of philosophical faith.” Sullivan said that to believe that evolution made all life on earth was “an extraordinary act of faith.” Dr. J. R. Durant points out that “many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, seizing upon new ideas with almost missionary zeal . . . In the case of the theory of evolution, the missionary spirit seems to have prevailed.” Physicist H. S. Lipson says that after Darwin “evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.”

Proving the above, U.S. News & World Report (March 2, 1981) told of scandals in science labs. A researcher at Yale said: “It’s the Watergate of science.” The article concluded: “‘It’s shocking,’ acknowledges Dr. Arnold Relman, editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. ‘It strikes yet another idol. Everyone turns out to have clay feet​—even some research scientists.”’ Simpson, in The Meaning of Evolution, said evolutionists “may use the same data to ‘prove’ diametrically opposed theories” and each one “puts his particular theory into the data.” (Pp. 137-9) Sullivan said that scientists do not “invariably tell the truth, or try to, even about their science. They have been known to lie, but they did not lie in order to serve science but, usually, religious or anti-religious prejudices.”​—Limitations of Science, pp. 173-5.

The original quest for truth is often forgotten as each one gleans for ideas to bolster his own emotional conviction, whether it be scientific dogma or religious creed. Evolution is not the caliber of the science that sends men to the moon or cracks the genetic code. It is more like religion​—priestlike authorities that speak ex cathedra, sectarian squabbles, unexplainable mysteries, faith in missing links and missing mutations, a laity that blindly follows, wresting evidence to fit their creed, and denouncing nonbelievers as stupid. And their god? The same one the ancients sacrificed to, preparing “a table for the god of Good Luck.”​—Isa. 65:11. Along with Mother Nature/Gaia and conveniently selective feigned agnosticism in the cop-out phrase 'we don't know (yet)' that functions as a sort of god-of-the-gaps (in its implication, that 'we don't know yet', but Mother Nature did it anyway, nature found a way, life finds a way, self-assembly, self-organization, etc.; puzzlesphere made some wild inaccurate, incorrect, claims regarding the self-organization of amino acids; ignoring for example the chemical engineering, creation, techniques used in the experiments conducted by Urey, Miller and Szostak; which at most one could describe as providing proof of concept for the intelligent creation of amino acids, if we're talking engineering terms here).

In Hans Christian Andersen’s famous tale of the emperor’s new clothes, it took a small child to tell the emperor that he was naked. Evolution now parades as fully clothed fact. We need childlike honesty to tell it that it’s naked. And we need courageous scientists like Professor Lipson, who said: “We must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.”

What evidence is there for belief in creation? See next comment (or some of my other comments).

THE “TYRANNY OF AUTHORITY” USED BY EVOLUTIONISTS:

“When he [Darwin] finished, the fact of evolution could be denied only by an abandonment of reason.”​—Life Nature Library, “Evolution,” p. 10.

“It is not a matter of personal taste whether or not we believe in evolution. The evidence for evolution is compelling.”​—“Evolution, Genetics, and Man,” p. 319, Dobzhansky.

“Its essential truth is now universally accepted by scientists competent to judge.”​—“Nature and Man’s Fate,” p. v, Hardin.

“The establishment of life’s family tree by the evolutionary process is now universally recognized by all responsible scientists.”​—“A Guide to Earth History,” p. 82, Carrington.

“No informed mind today denies that man is descended by slow process from the world of the fish and the frog.”​—“Life” magazine, August 26, 1966, Ardrey.

“It has become almost self-evident and requires no further proof to anyone reasonably free of old illusions and prejudices.”​—“The Meaning of Evolution,” p. 338, Simpson.

“There is no rival hypothesis except the outworn and completely refuted one of special creation, now retained only by the ignorant, the dogmatic, and the prejudiced.”​—“Outlines of General Zoology,” p. 40

a reply to: whereislogic

Can we test genetic inheritance?
Can we test DNA similarity between species, and plot the resulting percentages?
Can we date geological layers?
Can we find fossils in those geological layers that correspond to geological time scales?
Can we geo-locate those fossils and create maps of species distribution at varying geological time scales?
Can we correlate those maps together to understand the movements, extinction and emergence of different species?
Can we see variance from generation to generation within species?
Can we test how environmental factors effect those variances?
Can we see significant build-ups of changes in a species line over long periods of time?
Can we etc... etc... etc...

The answer is a definitive yes to all of these and more, in other words science.

So what field of research do you suggest these (and other) similar questions and lines of inquiry fall under, if not evolution?

a reply to: whereislogic

What does fit the facts? As knowledge advances evolution retreats (and remember, that includes the so-called "chemical evolution theory of life" as quoted from the wikipedia page on abiogenesis which talks about the spontaneous generation of life). Ancient Egyptians saw scarab beetles suddenly appear out of the ground, and believed they were self-produced (similar to puzzlesphere's terminology "self-configure"). But female beetles had laid eggs in balls of dung and buried them, and the offspring later emerged. Spontaneous generation? In the fifth century B.C.E. the Greek philosophers Anaxagoras and Empedocles taught it, and a century later Aristotle thought that worms and snails were products of putrefaction. As late as the 17th century C.E. scientists Francis Bacon and William Harvey taught spontaneous generation.

Advancing knowledge changed all of that. In that same 17th century, Redi showed that maggots appeared in meat only after flies laid eggs on it. Bacteria were discovered and hailed as examples of spontaneous generation of life, but a century later Spallanzani punctured that balloon. In the century after that Pasteur settled it that “life comes only from life.” This is now axiomatic. Even Darwin accepted this, saying in the closing sentence of The Origin of Species that life originated by “having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.”​—Page 450, Mentor edition.

Creation fits the fact that “life comes only from life.” Of Jehovah God, it is written: “With you is the source of life.”​—Ps. 36:9.

Next, fossils say creation. Simpson writes in The Meaning of Evolution: “Early Cambrian rocks, laid down about 500,000,000 years ago, are crowded with fossils. One place or another on earth there are also rich fossil deposits of almost all ages since the early Cambrian. But in rocks earlier than the Cambrian, representing the great span of 1,500,000,000 years, fossils are generally rare and usually dubious and disputed.” This abrupt bursting into the fossil record of fossils of all the major groups or phyla, except vertebrates, Simpson called “this major mystery of the history of life.”​—Pages 16-19.

Harvard’s professor Romer quoted Darwin’s comment on this mystery, “I can give no satisfactory answer”​—and Romer added, “Nor can we today.” Significantly, he then observed: “The general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.” However, now that the fossil record is superabundant since Cambrian times, does it show the beginnings of vertebrate or backboned life? No. Zoology professor Goldschmidt said, in The Material Basis of Evolution: “The facts fail to give any information regarding the origin of actual species, not to mention the higher categories.” (Page 165) Among fossil experts today this is a generally accepted fact.

And just as a quick reminder an earlier quotation I used in the thread about mutations regarding that terminology “higher categories” and the evolutionary myth, assumption and claim that mutations provide the raw material for the evolution of not only entirely new species, but also entirely new families of plants and animals:

Needless to say, I did not succeed in producing a higher category in a single step; but it must be kept in mind that neither have the Neo-Darwinians ever built up as much as the semblance of a new species by recombination of micromutations. In such well-studied organisms as Drosophila, in which numerous visible and, incidentally, small invisible mutations have been recombined, never has even the first step in the direction of a new species been accomplished, not to mention higher categories.

Richard B. Goldschmidt

Interestingly, evolutionists are aware that the fossil record is more compatible with creation than with evolution, even as they vehemently reject creation. Years ago several acknowledged this: “The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion. . . . The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational.” (L. T. More) “Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it . . . can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” (D. Watson) “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”​—Sir Arthur Keith.

Today some still see creation as fitting the facts. J. H. Corner, Cambridge University botanist and evolutionist, stated: “I still think, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.” (Contemporary Botanical Thought, 1961, p. 97) And as mentioned earlier, in the Physics Bulletin, May 1980, Professor Lipson reluctantly said: “We must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation.”

The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution. Creation fits its facts.

Even mutations fail evolution. Mutations are changes in the genetic material and produce new inheritable characteristics in the organism. The vast majority of the small ones are harmful; the big ones are crippling or lethal. They are believed to contribute to the degeneration of organisms and are responsible for many diseases and malformations. Nevertheless, evolutionists place hope in them as mechanisms of evolution. But they are found to be inadequate to produce new family kinds. Evolutionist Bengelsdorf said: “Mutations, involving base changes in genes, can account for differences between two men . . . But, for various reasons, they cannot account for overall evolution​—why there are fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals.”

Creationists have always acknowledged variation within the family kinds of Genesis chapter one​—the degree of variation attested to by the magazine Science for November 21, 1980: “Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in their physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean.” Verifying this experimentally, geneticists have induced floods of mutations in rapidly reproducing creatures, yet, “after 40 years of manipulating the evolution of fruit flies, which spawn generations in days, many bizarre changes have been seen, but fruit flies always remain fruit flies.”

The fossil record shows species breeding true for millions of years, according to evolutionists. Mutations, through both observation and experimentation, show constancy of species. When Genesis 1:12, 21, 24 says life would bring forth “according to its kind,” it fits the scientific facts.

a reply to: whereislogic
[continued from last comment]

Finally, the greatest gap of all. There is a tremendous gulf between man and the animal evolutionists consider closest to him. “Even this relatively recent history,” says Dobzhansky, “is shot through with uncertainties; authorities are often at odds, both about fundamentals and about details.” (Mankind Evolving, p. 168) Anthropologists make excited claims for their finds of bits of bones and teeth, then discard them as missing links when they find other similar scraps and enthrone them as the missing link between ape and man​—and squabble with other evolutionists who push their finds as the real link.

Man’s gifts of language, logic, creative thinking, music and art, his awareness of time past, present and future, his need for accomplishment and meaning and purpose in his life, his capacities for the qualities of justice, kindness, compassion and love​—these set man far beyond any animal. This is not explainable on the basis of evolution, but is attributable to the creation of man ‘in the image and likeness of God.’ (Gen. 1:26, 27) Once again it is creation that fits the facts.

Incidentally, many modernist religionists embrace evolution by saying that God created man, but used evolution to do it. The Genesis record does not allow for this. Our Creator did not evolve man from some animal, but “Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground.”​—Gen. 2:7.

Life’s origin says, Creation! Fossils say, Creation! Mutations say, Creation! The gulf between man and the closest animal cries out, Creation! It is creation, not evolution, that fits the scientific facts!

a reply to: whereislogic

Great! Then you can point to some peer-reviewed literature that supports your claims of creation being a scientific alternative right?

No?

All those words (essentially... evolution is wrong, evolution is wrong and creation is right...), and not a single verifiable fact?...

... that hasn't come from evolution research? (your quotes of opinions of people saying, "... evolution can't be right, creation must be right!..." don't constitute facts... other people's ideas is all you ever give... never an original thought of your own).

Why do you always use evolution research to try to discredit evolution research?... and never bring any of your sides own findings to the table? What?!?, your side doesn't have any findings? Why not? Is all you can do is harp on other peoples research, and not conceive of your own?

Where is the creation research?

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
“No informed mind today denies that man is descended by slow process from the world of the fish and the frog.”​—“Life” magazine, August 26, 1966, Ardrey.

Frogs turning into princes, eh? That's the sort of stuff you hear in faery tales.

See 2:21 - 2:53:

a reply to: whereislogic

Kind of seems like you have your fingers in your ears going "La-la-la-la-la..." with your copy/paste posts... especially since you haven't directly answered any of my questions in a short and concise manner.

You did, in a very long winded way, offer the alternative of special creation... but you didn't include for a way for it to be testable.

Be interested in a non-obfuscated, short direct answer to any of my recent posts?

Here, I'll make it easy:
You can point to some peer-reviewed literature that supports your claims of creation being a scientific alternative right?
So what field of research do you suggest these (and other) similar questions and lines of inquiry fall under, if not evolution?
Where is the creation research?

I'm not expecting anything coherent.

a reply to: puzzlesphere

Yeah, that poster is basically a bot. He just copy pastes non stop Jehovah's Witness propaganda. He can't back up a single claim, so he just posts creationists youtube videos and thinks it's science, but then blindly denies all the hard evidence supporting evolution and won't even address it.

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: whereislogic

Great! Then you can point to some peer-reviewed literature that supports your claims of creation being a scientific alternative right?

No?

So your last defense for evolutionary theory is the lack of another empirically defined theory? This thread is about the impossibility of evolution. As long as scientists keep trying to force this theory, we will continue to waste countless taxpayer dollars and time trying to prove an obsolete theory.

The mathematical predictability of chemical reactions, body size ratios, consistent morphology, pi, phi, cosmic orbits, and so on, all indicate an intelligent faculty designed this world. If you need the white coats to tell you what's true or not, then you forfeit your ability to search for truth. You are at the whim of the age-old, deceptive 'teachers of the law' who are paid to coincide with the evolutionary narrative.

a reply to: whereislogic

It's very telling that they never address the points you make in your posts, they only sidetrack. With that sort of illusive behavior, it's an effort in futility to convey a point to them. But for anyone reading it is good for them to see, if they remain objective, that there is no response to the obvious insufficiencies of evolutionary theory.

a reply to: cooperton

The mathematical predictability of chemical reactions, body size ratios, consistent morphology, pi, phi, cosmic orbits, and so on, all indicate an intelligent faculty designed this world. If you need the white coats to tell you what's true or not, then you forfeit your ability to search for truth. You are at the whim of the age-old, deceptive 'teachers of the law' who are paid to coincide with the evolutionary narrative.

This flies in the face of the fact that life has proven to adapt to the environment in which it lives. That is evolving.
This makes all life self-aware of itself in some regard, and that is evolved intelligence.

a reply to: cooperton

So, you can't point me to any credible creationist research? Not surprising as it seems honesty and truthfulness don't matter to you and your ilk, and you never actually answer that question.

Was your whole post just to avoid saying "There is no credible creationist research."?

Not even close to my last defense, just highlighting the fact that if you're going to suggest something is wrong, you either need to provide a correction, or an alternative. Since you are always saying evolution is wrong, i'm saying fine, show me the correct path with evidence, or provide a testable alternative... which you don't. You say it is obvious, I'm merely asking you for the test that proves it's obviousness.

Why can't you do that if it is so self-evident???

You think it's telling that whereislogics's points are never addressed?... lol...

Every single one of his points has been responded to multiple times on this site, in many threads, with mountains of evidence that has been summarily ignored by him, and you and other creationists. He never brings anything new (same as you), always repeating the same old tired, definitively debunked creationist rhetoric.

So, no... I'm not playing the tit-for-tat of addressing every single point with creationists at the moment, as it's a never ending cycle. I am looking for the core concept at the base of all those examples, so we can move past the cyclical arguments.

So, for arguments sake, I am accepting that evolution is wrong, and I'm asking you to provide the alternative that I should spend my time researching instead of evolution?

If you don't offer an alternative, that only leaves evolution as the currently known, and viable path of legitimate research in terms of both origins and the processes of life.

Or you could give me a repeatable test for intelligent design?

originally posted by: charlyv


This flies in the face of the fact that life has proven to adapt to the environment in which it lives. That is evolving.

No because adaptation use pre-existent alleles or epigenetic alterations that are already present in the genome. Evolution insists on the creation of new functional proteins via genetic mutations, which is absolutely asinine considering the meticulous coding sequences required to create a coherent protein. The Titin protein for example has over 100,000 base pairs in its coding... How do you suppose all those mutations could have organized a coherent protein coding sequence over the years?

Believing that random mutations could have created Titin is equivalent to a monkey writing a Shakespearean epic which only has 24,545 words, compared to Titin's 100,000 base pairs.

originally posted by: puzzlesphere

Or you could give me a repeatable test for intelligent design?

Learn to be in-tune with your body, all the knowledge of the Creator is within us. Consider Socrates' theory of recollection, or research into phyletic memories (we have the ability to know God/Truth programmed into our bodies).

a reply to: cooperton

Yep, there's your expected Appeal to Complexity comment!
Do you realise and not care, or actually not see the logical fallacy in your comments? Have you read the page on Appeal to Complexity? Do you understand how the argument works yet? Do you understand how it is 100% exactly what you are doing?

Your disbelief and awe at the complexity of life, and suggestion of improbable probability (monkeys on typewriters... seriously?), does not constitute proof... It is you purely projecting your dis-"belief".

... and is that seriously your suggestion of a repeatable test for intelligent design?

You basically just said... "... all of the answers are inside of us man!"

How do you test that? What is the line of inquiry I can pursue in your comment with a $3 million grant and a team of 20 researchers? What possible results can I derive from "... all the knowledge of god is within us..." that I can develop a real world application from?

Ummmm... so no repeatable test for intelligent design?

Why not just say it, rather offer philosophy as an answer?