The Lie of Evolution from a Credible Scientist

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
I have read Dawkins and have taken Biology several times. The evidence for adaptation is a function of programming.

Surely you have a source for this that shows actual physical evidence that adaption was programmed.

We are quantum processors within nature.

Proof?

Photons form chains in parent and daughter roots. Hebrew forms sentences (chains of information) with parent and child roots. Accident?

No offense, but that's a terrible comparison and proves nothing.

Explanation? Accident? The odds of what I said above being wrong are far less than the odds of evolution explaining any part of the world around us as stated by science.

Prove it. Post the mathematical odds and demonstrate how they favor programming.

Evolution is a result of programming and nothing more. It is a design feature as outlined by God in the Bible and within our very DNA structure.

Prove it. Your opinion on DNA is not proof nor is it scientific.

To sum up my post, please prove what you are saying with objective scientific evidence. Youtube videos do not count. I want the hard science, that you keep claiming exists, but haven't posted.

I'm curious. Has anyone ever claimed that they believed in evolution because God told them it was true?

Seriously, I wonder if a believer in Divinely Guided evolution has ever claimed this?

reply to post by Barcs


A good video I came across today in another thread. The claims of evolution avoid the first three in the video. I've noticed this here as well. The textbooks attempt to reason this away, but lack a foundation based on evidence.

reply to post by EnochWasRight

"I like science. I'm not against science."

Amazing how the lies spill forth from Dr. Dino's lips from the second the video starts.

A good video I came across today in another thread.

There are no good Kent Hovind videos. If you're relying on this man as the foundation for your arguments, you're relying on the word of a convicted fraud who has zero education in the field of science.

The claims of evolution avoid the first three in the video.

Because they have nothing to do with the biological concept of evolution. Conflating them with biological evolution in an attempt to disprove biological evolution is a strawman argument.

Did you even take a critical view of this video? He doesn't even try to refute his own first definition of evolution -- cosmic evolution -- he just leaves it hanging out there, so he must believe in the Big Bang. By the second one -- chemical evolution -- he's already done one of two things: he's either lying by omission, because we've observed the r- and s-processes that create heavier elements, or he's displaying his own scientific ignorance of those processes. So would you rather your spokesperson be a liar or stupid? And he continues on in the same fashion for the rest of his less-than-noteworthy video.

You should have just posted a Chick tract on the subject. It would have contained the same amount of scientific veracity but more entertaining by virtue of the crude drawings.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by Barcs

 

A good video I came across today in another thread. The claims of evolution avoid the first three in the video. I've noticed this here as well. The textbooks attempt to reason this away, but lack a foundation based on evidence.

Another Hovind video, another strawman. He makes up his own definition and then tries to make arguments against it. The theory of evolution is BIOLOGICAL evolution. Not cosmic, chemical, stellar or organic (abiogenesis). They are all separate concepts, and incorrectly labeled by him. Perhaps I should tell you what evolution IS, since you don't seem to grasp it.

Genetic mutations + Natural selection = Evolution. Are you claiming that either one of those does not exist? Micro and macro are just descriptions of short term vs longterm. Genetic mutations add up over time. That's pretty much all it is. The environment drives the process. It's proven, end of story.

Now I believe I asked for evidence of what you are talking about, not a fallacious youtube video that failed to address anything. Originally it sounded like you agreed with evolution, but just thought it was a guided process. Why are you now attempting to disprove the entire thing? I'm a little confused.

reply to post by Barcs


Give me the Evolutionary explanation of these two statements. On these two reasoning alone, the case for a Creator emerges as the most likely candidate for human existence. Where would Evolution stand on these two statements?

1. PHYSICAL OBJECTS DO NOT SELF-CREATE

Every physical object we encounter does not "self-create," instead it comes into existence as a result of a prior cause, or action. No one has ever encountered an object instantly materializing out of thin air.

2. THE GREATER CREATES THE LESSER

The prior cause or action is always greater in magnitude (degree) than the "effect" or the result. A human can design a robot but the robot can never design a human. By the same token the robot may produce a widget but the widget can never produce a robot.

LINK

Match these to my previous statement that nothing rises above its source.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by Barcs

 

Give me the Evolutionary explanation of these two statements. On these two reasoning alone, the case for a Creator emerges as the most likely candidate for human existence. Where would Evolution stand on these two statements?

1. PHYSICAL OBJECTS DO NOT SELF-CREATE

Every physical object we encounter does not "self-create," instead it comes into existence as a result of a prior cause, or action. No one has ever encountered an object instantly materializing out of thin air.

2. THE GREATER CREATES THE LESSER

The prior cause or action is always greater in magnitude (degree) than the "effect" or the result. A human can design a robot but the robot can never design a human. By the same token the robot may produce a widget but the widget can never produce a robot.

LINK

Match these to my previous statement that nothing rises above its source.

"Greater creates lesser" doesn't hold...because an apple seed grows into something greater last I checked. And it's obviously wrong because life became more complex over time...if you consider this "greater".

In physics the "prior cause or action is always greater..." doesn't hold anyway under a ton of circumstances.

And evolution doesn't talk about "self-creations", so I'm not sure how that has anything to do with evolution.

EDIT: Never mind, I just saw you posted a DrDino video...all hope is lost In case you're wondering, here's some info about this king of clowns => LINK

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by Barcs

 

Give me the Evolutionary explanation of these two statements. On these two reasoning alone, the case for a Creator emerges as the most likely candidate for human existence. Where would Evolution stand on these two statements?

1. PHYSICAL OBJECTS DO NOT SELF-CREATE

Every physical object we encounter does not "self-create," instead it comes into existence as a result of a prior cause, or action. No one has ever encountered an object instantly materializing out of thin air.

2. THE GREATER CREATES THE LESSER

The prior cause or action is always greater in magnitude (degree) than the "effect" or the result. A human can design a robot but the robot can never design a human. By the same token the robot may produce a widget but the widget can never produce a robot.

LINK

Match these to my previous statement that nothing rises above its source.

"Greater creates lesser" doesn't hold...because an apple seed grows into something greater last I checked. And it's obviously wrong because life became more complex over time...if you consider this "greater".

In physics the "prior cause or action is always greater..." doesn't hold anyway under a ton of circumstances.

And evolution doesn't talk about "self-creations", so I'm not sure how that has anything to do with evolution.

EDIT: Never mind, I just saw you posted a DrDino video...all hope is lost

In case you're wondering, here's some info about this king of clowns => LINK

edit on 18-4-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

To answer the question, you cannot rely on previously designed life. For the Evolutionist to make his case, the case must be made apart from life with encoded information for purpose in reproduction. This is your problem to solve when life was not present on Earth. You can't make the case that a robot can create a robot either. We know that robots are the result of design. Please restate your conclusion apart from life.

reply to post by EnochWasRight

To answer the question, you cannot rely on previously designed life.

That's simply nonsense. You're essentially saying the technician installing your washing machine needs to know exactly how to build you house...because without a house he couldn't install the washing machine in the first place.

That's complete and utter nonsense...and about as ridiculous as saying "scientists can't use electricity or understand it...because they don't know how it came to be during the big bang".

Complete...and utter...NONSENSE

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

To answer the question, you cannot rely on previously designed life.

That's simply nonsense. You're essentially saying the technician installing your washing machine needs to know exactly how to build you house...because without a house he couldn't install the washing machine in the first place.

That's complete and utter nonsense...and about as ridiculous as saying "scientists can't use electricity or understand it...because they don't know how it came to be during the big bang".

Complete...and utter...NONSENSE

I see your view. Now explain how a Creator is nonsense. The best answer we have for the modern view of evolution is that life originated by creation and design. Do you have a better explanation? If not, what are your supporting reasons for denying design?

Originally posted by EnochWasRight

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

To answer the question, you cannot rely on previously designed life.

That's simply nonsense. You're essentially saying the technician installing your washing machine needs to know exactly how to build you house...because without a house he couldn't install the washing machine in the first place.

That's complete and utter nonsense...and about as ridiculous as saying "scientists can't use electricity or understand it...because they don't know how it came to be during the big bang".

Complete...and utter...NONSENSE

I see your view. Now explain how a Creator is nonsense. The best answer we have for the modern view of evolution is that life originated by creation and design. Do you have a better explanation? If not, what are your supporting reasons for denying design?

It's not about guessing

If you make a claim, such as "a god created the universe", you have to be able to back it up with OBJECTIVE evidence...which nobody has done so far. Fact is, we DON'T KNOW how life started in the first place, and all you do by saying a creator did it is filling a GAP IN KNOWLEDGE with magic.

That's the same approach people used in ancient times to explain comets...or plagues...or floods...or fire...or a ton of other stuff they couldn't explain rationally and objectively. The "god did it" track record is really horrible, we haven't found a single thing that is proven to be god's work. So until someone presents objective evidence for his/her/its existence, claiming you know for a "fact" he/she/it exists is crazy.

reply to post by EnochWasRight

I like it how Dr. Dino thinks that Pasteur's experiment that disproved spontaneous generation of flies, unquestionably proves that abiogenesis is impossible. Because assembly of autocatalytic RNA molecules (which has already happened in the lab) and spontaneous generation of flies is totally the same thing. Such intellect (and he has the nerve to call himself a doctor, with fake a degree and everything). Creationists of course take it all in without a second thought, just like they took in their religious dogma. Brains not needed (in fact forbidden). How can people act in such irrational manner? These kind of people make me ashamed of my species. We don't deserve our place in the Galactic Union before we manage to rid our world of this ignorance.

reply to post by MrXYZ

It's not about guessing

If you make a claim, such as "a god created the universe", you have to be able to back it up with OBJECTIVE evidence...which nobody has done so far. Fact is, we DON'T KNOW how life started in the first place, and all you do by saying a creator did it is filling a GAP IN KNOWLEDGE with magic.

That's the same approach people used in ancient times to explain comets...or plagues...or floods...or fire...or a ton of other stuff they couldn't explain rationally and objectively. The "god did it" track record is really horrible, we haven't found a single thing that is proven to be god's work. So until someone presents objective evidence for his/her/its existence, claiming you know for a "fact" he/she/it exists is crazy.

Objective evidence is in this thread from top to bottom. Do you want more?

MARK OF MAN
666 is Carbon (6 protons, 6 electrons, 6 neutrons)

MARK OF GOD AND CHRIST - Breath - WORD - God's number 777. Jesus in Greek 888.
777 is Nitrogen
888 is Oxygen

MARK OF SATAN RISING ABOVE GOD
999 - Flourine

Flourine is used to enrich uranium. When mixed with Carbon, it creates Fluorocarbon. It is Flouride in our tooth paste. It is placed in our drinking water. To see the work of Evil, we need only see God's work in reflection. Good is the reflection of Evil.

666
999

Satan tries to rise above God using His Creation in his own reflection of the fruit of knowledge (Technology). Genesis 3 states that we will die as a result. Revelation then reveals the mark of mankind that would signify the end events that cause our trial by fire. Flourine is necessary for man to destroy himself by fire.

In English Gematria, Jesus is 444. Lucifer is 444. Evil and Good are equally matched until Christ won the victory.

444 - The fourth Element is synthesized in stars and is short-lived. Beryllium has 4 protons, 4 electrons and 4 neutrons. It is divalent, which means it has a valence of two, forming two bonds with other ions or molecules. Gemstones containing beryllium include beryl and Chrysoberyl. Chrysoberyl comes from the Greek: chrysos meaning 'golden'. 'Beryl' is from the Greek berrulos, meaning 'crystal'. Chrysoberyl means Golden Crystal. It's one of the world's rarest gyms. The largest cut stone is in the Smithsonian (66 carats).

One of the characteristic features of some varieties of chrysoberyl (for example from the Ural mountains in Russia) is their so-called "Alexandrite Effect" where the stone looks green in daylight and red in candlelight.

And finally, the best of all: "Finally, the translucent yellowish variety is called cymophane from greek meaning "wave", but is better known as "cat's eye". (An example can be seen above.) The effect of a single ray of light passing across the crystal is achieved by microscopic tubelike cavities or needlelike inclusions of rutile inside the stone.

John 1:1 THE WORD / WAVE of LIGHT! Notice the cat's eye. Notice the true all seeing eye marked into the stone.

One website called it the Seventh Stone of the New Jerusalem foundation.

The seventh, chrysolyte. — Heavenly Wisdom. Greek Chrysos, gold, and lithos, stone. The meaning of the term makes it the golden stone. It is a gem of a golden color, lightly tinted with green. It is very transparent. "The wisdom that is from Above is first pure." — Jas. 3:17.

I am just getting started with the nature of the universe and its design encoded into the Bible. If you only look at the surface and waves of the ocean, you miss the riches in the depths.

Jesus is encoded into the elements because he designed the entire universe by WORD. Information comprises all of what you see and know. This Living WORD defies our reasoning of it.

When an artist leaves his mark on his work, that's evidence an artist was there designing his work of art.

Originally posted by rhinoceros
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

I like it how Dr. Dino thinks that Pasteur's experiment that disproved spontaneous generation of flies, unquestionably proves that abiogenesis is impossible. Because assembly of autocatalytic RNA molecules (which has already happened in the lab) and spontaneous generation of flies is totally the same thing. Such intellect (and he has the nerve to call himself a doctor, with fake a degree and everything). Creationists of course take it all in without a second thought, just like they took in their religious dogma. Brains not needed (in fact forbidden). How can people act in such irrational manner? These kind of people make me ashamed of my species. We don't deserve our place in the Galactic Union before we manage to rid our world of this ignorance.

edit on 18-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

What you are missing is simple. The observations that science makes about the universe are not entirely incorrect. We see many amazing facts that link together to show us how it may have been accomplished. The problem in the science is not the science itself. The problem rests squarely in the implications drawn from the observation. On top of this problem of bias against alternative origin scenarios, the implications are then propped up with theoretical assumptions that have no foundations in reality. All of this to deny a creator.

When a non-biased analysis is done on the observation, the only conclusion is that the simplest answer that unifies all paradox and provides the obvious excluded middle is a Designer of the entire universe. We easily make this conclusion by observing the apex of creation. Man mirrors the designer with a creation of his own. The creation of virtual reality verifies that what we experience as reality is the very thing we are busying ourselves creating. Our version is a pale comparison to the one we occupy. Again, this is the simplest answer. Merely because we lack the capability now does not negate the obvious conclusion that our universe is a holographic projection of energy. What we perceive as energy is now known to be information in movement. The same process that causes heat to generate in our processors is the same effect that we observe in nature as entropy. AGAIN!!!! THIS is what the science demonstrates. The conclusion will always point toward the one that encoded the information into every atom.

For Mr. XYZ. You need evidence for what I just said. The video is it. We are not worthy of the man speaking the conclusion so there is no need to argue with him. He is on the cutting edge of the correct theory.

reply to post by EnochWasRight

MARK OF MAN
666 is Carbon (6 protons, 6 electrons, 6 neutrons)

MARK OF GOD AND CHRIST - Breath - WORD - God's number 777. Jesus in Greek 888.
777 is Nitrogen
888 is Oxygen

MARK OF SATAN RISING ABOVE GOD
999 - Flourine

Flourine is used to enrich uranium. When mixed with Carbon, it creates Fluorocarbon. It is Flouride in our tooth paste. It is placed in our drinking water. To see the work of Evil, we need only see God's work in reflection. Good is the reflection of Evil.

666
999

First of all, numerology isn't objective evidence. You can read everything into numbers. I was born in 1982, if you add up 19 and 82 you get 101. If you add up those individual digits, you get 2...and omg, I have 2 legs, what a coincidence!!!

Also, Fluorine is mostly used in steel and aluminium production.

Satan tries to rise above God using His Creation in his own reflection of the fruit of knowledge (Technology). Genesis 3 states that we will die as a result. Revelation then reveals the mark of mankind that would signify the end events that cause our trial by fire. Flourine is necessary for man to destroy himself by fire.

That's also not objective evidence...it's called "preaching"

Oh, and Fluorine isn't required for fires in the first place...

In English Gematria, Jesus is 444. Lucifer is 444. Evil and Good are equally matched until Christ won the victory.

Getting that from the bible...which isn't objective evidence either

444 - The fourth Element is synthesized in stars and is short-lived. Beryllium has 4 protons, 4 electrons and 4 neutrons. It is divalent, which means it has a valence of two, forming two bonds with other ions or molecules. Gemstones containing beryllium include beryl and Chrysoberyl. Chrysoberyl comes from the Greek: chrysos meaning 'golden'. 'Beryl' is from the Greek berrulos, meaning 'crystal'. Chrysoberyl means Golden Crystal. It's one of the world's rarest gyms. The largest cut stone is in the Smithsonian (66 carats).

How on earth is that proof of a creator???

One of the characteristic features of some varieties of chrysoberyl (for example from the Ural mountains in Russia) is their so-called "Alexandrite Effect" where the stone looks green in daylight and red in candlelight.

Also not objective evidence for a creator...

And finally, the best of all: "Finally, the translucent yellowish variety is called cymophane from greek meaning "wave", but is better known as "cat's eye". (An example can be seen above.) The effect of a single ray of light passing across the crystal is achieved by microscopic tubelike cavities or needlelike inclusions of rutile inside the stone.

Yeah, some gemstones are really nice...but again, where's the objective evidence of a creator??

"This gemstone is so pretty...ergo a creator exists!" isn't objective evidence

John 1:1 THE WORD / WAVE of LIGHT! Notice the cat's eye. Notice the true all seeing eye marked into the stone.

You do realize that science can fully explain how those stones form in the first place...right? No magic required

Jesus is encoded into the elements because he designed the entire universe by WORD. Information comprises all of what you see and know. This Living WORD defies our reasoning of it.

And that's your BELIEF and NOT objective evidence

When an artist leaves his mark on his work, that's evidence.

We have proof and objective evidence for an artist signing his work...we don't for a creator.

I think the problem comes down to this: You don't know the difference between OBJECTIVE evidence and subjective evidence (aka "belief").

reply to post by EnochWasRight


The holographic universe is a HYPOTHESIS and NOT a scientific theory...BIG difference

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

The holographic universe is a HYPOTHESIS and NOT a scientific theory...BIG difference

Nearly 20 pages now and we keep avoiding the video. It often takes people time to grasp new concepts. Susskind is ahead of all of us in this field. The conclusion seems new, but this has been the theme of reality since antiquity. All religions hint toward reality being an illusion of matter. Spirit is also a reality we do not see.

Hebrews 11

Hebrews 11:3

King James Version (KJV)

3Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Again, has science ever denied the unseen reality that is implied? Never. They only deny it when it engages their bias against the obvious conclusion that we are designed. When this happens, a new and improved theory is created apart from any evidence. Theoretical science takes great strides into imagination to avoid God. Rarely would this ever be considered a rational way to proceed toward an implication. Equations do not work if we have bias toward some numbers and not others. There is nothing rational about bias.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

The holographic universe is a HYPOTHESIS and NOT a scientific theory...BIG difference

Let me give you a theoretical question. If man could progress another 1000 years in peace, would computer science and advancements in brain research allow the matrix to become reality?

Obviously, your answer would be yes. If not 1000, then a 1,000,000 years. Based on your assumptions and bias toward God, it's just not possible for Him to create a similar reality out of energy in a space, moving in time. Do you see the paradox for you in this reasoning? You know it is possible for us, yet you limit an unlimited God because you see no evidence that we are a similar creation. The truth of the matter is the opposite. We are the evidence.

reply to post by EnochWasRight


I guess I'll point it out again: The holographic universe hypothesis is a HYPOTHESIS and NOT a theory!!

Do you know the difference between a hypothesis and a scientific theory like evolution?? You can repost that video a thousand times, but all it shows that you apparently don't get the difference.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

The holographic universe is a HYPOTHESIS and NOT a scientific theory...BIG difference

Let me give you a theoretical question. If man could progress another 1000 years in peace, would computer science and advancements in brain research allow the matrix to become reality?

Obviously, your answer would be yes. If not 1000, then a 1,000,000 years. Based on your assumptions and bias toward God, it's just not possible for Him to create a similar reality out of energy in a space, moving in time. Do you see the paradox for you in this reasoning? You know it is possible for us, yet you limit an unlimited God because you see no evidence that we are a similar creation. The truth of the matter is the opposite. We are the evidence.

edit on 18-4-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)

No we aren't the "evidence" because there's nothing suggesting a creator is responsible. People have often attributed a TON of stuff to god, and one by one those things were proven wrong (comets, plagues, etc.). The "god did it" track record is horrible