Originally Posted by Pahu;2849780Eighteen Factors Disproving Evolution
Evolution flunks the science test
[b

Irreducible complexity——[/color] [/b]Biochemists and microbiologists have discovered that the various components of every living creature in the world are so complicated and interrelated, that it could not function without every one of them. There is no way that some of the parts could have been added later.

Instantaneous complexity——[/color] Each entire living creature had to be totally assembled instantly, in order for it to begin living. If this was not done, parts would decay before other parts were made. All aspects had to be there together, all at once.

] Mathematically impossible——[/color] Mathematicians have found that the likelihood of DNA, enzymes, amino acids, and proteins being randomly assembled by the chance methods offered by evolutionary theory is impossible.

Intelligently designed——[/color] Everything in creation—from the largest galaxy to the smallest atom—reveals the fact that it was planned, designed, and constructed by an Intelligent Being of the highest intellect and capabilities.

Complicated interrelated functions of separate systems——[/color] All of the various structures and organs in every living thing are marvelously interrelated. In order to maintain its existence, each part depends on many others.

] Extremely involved production sequence——[/color] The various processes by which things are made in living organisms are complicated in the extreme. Very lengthy production sequences are generally required. Each step in the procedure must follow other correctly taken steps.

] Coded instructions which are referred to and obeyed——[/color] Not only are coded instructions provided for everything done in the cell, but proteins and enzymes read and obey these instructions—as though they had the brains to do this!

] Ideal location of structures——[/color] Every component on or within each organism is consistently located in the best place, in relation to other components, space limitations, and maximum efficiency in operation. Only careful planning could do this.

Narrowed limits everywhere——[/color] Wherever we turn in the natural world (here on earth and in the sky above us) we find that, what is called, the "anthropic principle" is involved. An extremely narrow range of conditions exists where life can exist, stars can form, and planets can revolve and orbit around the sun. This narrowed range is found repeatedly by researchers, and is too compressed to have been caused by accidents or coincidence.

Functional objects which provide an attractive, even beautiful appearance——[/color] Living creatures which are commonly seen are generally quite attractive in appearance. The production of a beautiful form requires intelligent planning and execution. In addition, attractive coloration is provided. Consider the color and shaping of the cardinal, the robin, and many animals and trees. These are elements and attributes which are not necessary for survival, yet which provide additional comfort and beauty. Only intelligence can produce beautiful things.

Excessive information content and capacity in life forms——[/color] Such a capacity, far beyond the bare minimum needed for survival, is repeatedly found. The brain power of mankind is remarkable. The lower forms of life also show an abundance of capacity beyond the amount needed for mere survival.

[] The characteristic of life itself——[/color] Within every living organism is a mysterious something which cannot be initiated by any known natural or human-induced device or method. Not even a superior created intelligence could produce this. Only God could implant life. In life, we are confronted with a continual miracle.

The total impossibility of any other means to produce and maintain all these functions and organisms——[/color] All the functions and structures in multiplied trillions of organisms must continually be cared for by an Intelligence out of and beyond ourselves. We are told, "In Him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28).

The existence and operation of basic, and other, natural laws governing everything——[/color] Even the laws of nature had to be devised and set in place. They did not spring into being automatically.

The existence, structure, and unvarying function of basic elements of matter——[/color] Gaze within the atom. Why do the various particles keep whirling about one another? There are puzzles here which far exceed our understanding of basic matter and electrical forces. The atomic structure, movements, and functions of the elements are amazing.

[ All of nature is simply too astounding——[/color] We are too quick to take everything for granted. It is impossible for everything that exists—to exist—in its present useful form and function, much less in any form or function; yet it does.

[ The inability of the opposing view to provide even one solid scientific evidence in support of its theory——[/color] This is a very revealing fact. A "scientific theory" is not scientific, when it lacks the underlying scientific evidence proving it to be worthwhile. Oh yes, evolution includes theories built on theories. But the basic theory, they are all piled on top of, is totally lacking in scientific evidence.

While Creationists are able to present a multitude of scientific evidences (such as are found in this present book), evolutionists can only reply with ridicule and efforts to stifle discussion—--[/color] They dare not present valid scientific data to support their theory, because they have none. The ridicule and lack of supporting scientific evidence are abundantly seen in the articles they write in scientific journals, attempting to refute Creationist books and articles.

Originally Posted by Leto (Post 2849981)

troll! well his (her?) status is banned. Is that telling? At any rate, just a cursory reading of the OP's arguments found them to be backwards deductions.

Originally Posted by The_Jazz (Post 2849983)

Since so many folks have responded here and there seems to be a less-than-zero chance of a worthwhile discussion developing from the OP

Originally Posted by Ourcrazymodern? (Post 2850097)

Free-for-all disputation might be fun, though.

Originally Posted by mcgeedo (Post 2850089)

"...a number so small as to be indistinguishable from zero."

With a suitable resolution, any number that is NOT zero IS distinguishable from zero.

Originally Posted by GreyWolf (Post 2850110)

I stole that concept from a description of the SR-71 Blackbird, with is NOT black, but rather "a special shade of blue that is visually indistinguishable from black".

In total non-support of my statement, a basic tenet of quantum mechanics is that there is finite resolution to all measurements, beyond which one cannot go without altering reality and the basic substructure of the Universe.

I stand by my belief that my proof of the non-existence of life is as valid as any proof offered in the OP.:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2850216)

Can we close this thread? Or burn it at the stake?

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru (Post 2850121)

The concepts in the OP have been addressed a number of times by evolutionary theorists (Stephen J. Gould is one that comes to mind).

The biggest concept that throws people off is the concept of "deep time" with regard to considering the mechanism and outcome of the process of natural selection. It boggles our minds to think in terms of long spans of time considering that we operate on cycles of 24-hours, 7 days, ~30 days, and 365 days, and have a lifespan of anywhere between 40 years and 80 years, give or take.

Tell a child that they have to wait until next year before doing something they're obsessed about and see the reaction. Tell a lover that you'll see them in 10 years, and watch the reaction. Now consider that WWII ended 65 years ago. To those who are still alive, this is a distant memory and society has changed greatly since the '40s, both socially and technologically.

Now consider that the United States of America was recognized as a sovereign state over 230 years ago. That's several lifetimes. Ponder that a moment, and then consider that China has a culture dating back nearly 4,000 years. Woah, right?

Now consider that Neanderthals became extinct approximately 30,000 years ago. This means that they've been extinct 7.5 times longer than the existence of one of the most ancient cultures in the world. Take your time. Think about that.

Now consider that the genus Homo appeared around 200,000 years ago.
Now consider that the dinosaurs died out around 65 million years ago.
Now consider that mammals appeared around 200 million years ago.
Now consider that multicellular life appeared around 1 billion years ago.

Now consider that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old.

Do you see a pattern? The "milestones" of evolution dating back from your 6-year-old's temper tantrum about "next year" all the way to 4.5 billion years tend to space out exponentially and through mind-boggling spans of time.

Most people today can't sit quietly for 10 minutes without stimulation, and we're talking about billions of years of evolution here.

And people question the existence of complex lifeforms and geology?

Originally Posted by GreyWolf (Post 2849967)

For shame you Doubting Thomases (for those not getting the Biblical reference here, I'm not talking about a hole in Pahu's side, but rather his head)... there are several words in the OP that are actually true. Many of the articles and adjectives are demonstrably correct.

I prefer to respond on a level intellectually equal to the arguments put forth in the article by paraphrasing that definitive repository of modern knowledge and science (paraphrasing since I don't have it here at the moment to give the exact quote) - The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. To whit:

- The Universe is unimaginably huge, vast, and essentially infinite (that we cannot see beyond a certain point is OUR limitation, not that of the universe);

- The number of living organisms in the Universe is finite;

- Mathematically, dividing the volume of the Universe by the number of living organisms extant gives a number so small as to be indistinguishable from zero;

- Therefore, the existence of life is disproved;

- Ergo, the Universe being devoid of life, we do not exist, the article in the OP was never written, we were never created because we do not exist, and Sunday brunch is simply a figment of a deranged imagination.

The proof is complete, robust, and unassailable by any form of logic.

Originally Posted by mcgeedo (Post 2850089)

"...a number so small as to be indistinguishable from zero."

With a suitable resolution, any number that is NOT zero IS distinguishable from zero.

Originally Posted by thedoc (Post 2852517)

I believe the current science states that the universe is 'Finite but Unbounded' that is the Universe is limited in size but has no edge. Most of the points in the OP have been presented on a TV series I used to watch just to laugh at how silly people could be. The usual argument was to present some complex organism and then say 'How could this arise by chance?' with no further proof or discussion.

Originally Posted by fresnelly (Post 2852601)

My lay understanding is that the Universe as we know it is all the stuff (and spacetime bound inbetween) that blew out of the big bang. Is it possible that there could be another bound configuration of stuff and spacetime operating next door? I don't mean in any complicated quantum interdimensional sci-fi way but simply in the way that a Galaxy can exist next to another galaxy and so on.

Or do our current theories of the Universe prevent that?

Originally Posted by MSD (Post 2852421)

OK, now tell me if .999 repeating is equal to 1 or not.

Originally Posted by MSD (Post 2853209)

Our current best theory is that ours is the only observable universe and that spacetime is expanding outward into an undefined region of nothing. At the edge of the expansion, the laws of physics may break down and allow for a >c expansion rate because there is no reason that the laws of physics as we know them would limit what happens on the edge of existence.

Originally Posted by thedoc (Post 2853431)

It is my understanding that C (the speed of light) as a limit applies to matter and energy travels at that speed, it does not apply (according to theory) to space itself, and space can expand and move faster than C. So as space expands and moves away it carries the galaxies with it which would appear to move faster than C but may not really be moving very fast at all in the space it is in.

Originally Posted by The_Jazz (Post 2854562)

thedoc, I think you've forgotten another instance where physics breaks down, but it's at the opposite end of the spectrum. When dealing with quantum foam and dimensions, the laws of physics change drastically and the very nature of particles changes. Again, the concept is counterintuitive and possibly beyond our understanding. That said, it's a lot easier to study than the edge of the universe.