Skip to content

ExpatSingapore

Home Message Board Contact Us Search

ExpatSingapore Message Board 22 October 2018, 20:32:17 PM *
Username: Password: (or Register)
 
Pages: 1 ... 162 163 [164]
  Print  
Author Topic: Science Disproves Evolution  (Read 448887 times)
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1327



View Profile
« Reply #2445 on: 08 April 2018, 4:14:28 AM »

Now we have Walt, quoting the ICR.
And irreducible complexity morphs into intelligent Design.
Again, not worth the time to refute it all.

The disciplines of science prove creation and disprove evolution. For example:

Intelligent design

Intelligent design theorists contend that the core feature of life consists of information processing systems that cannot be fully explained as being the result of unintelligent causes alone. When evolutionist Richard Dawkins was young, he recognized that the complexity of life indicates a designer.

Intelligent design (ID) is the empirically testable[1] theory that the natural world shows signs of having been designed by a purposeful, intelligent cause.[2] As Jonathan Wells wrote, "ID ... asserts only that some features of living things are better explained by an intelligent cause than by unguided processes." [3] Wells, among others, uses ID to rebut the Darwinian assertion that the features of living things are "inexplicable on the theory of creation" but fully explicable as products of unguided natural forces.[4]

The central idea of Intelligent Design theory is that design is empirically detectable, just as the detectability of design in man-made objects is straightforward, non-controversial, and often intuitive (see: design detection). With respect to the origin and development of cosmological and biological systems, Intelligent Design theory holds that the same principles provide a logical inference of design in nature. That is, without necessarily "proving" actual intelligent design in nature, the observable material evidence provides a reasonable basis from which to infer design, and such an inference supports a legitimate scientific hypothesis of intelligent design. As such, Intelligent Design theory is a scientific disagreement with the core claim of materialistic theories of evolution such as chemical and Darwinian evolution [5] that the design exhibited in our universe is merely apparent design, i.e., unintelligent design caused by unguided, purposeless, natural forces of physics and chemistry alone.[6]

In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection—how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, archeology, forensic sciences, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain cosmological and biological features of the natural world may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.[7]

Intelligent Design theory, like all theories of origins, is scientifically and religiously controversial. All theories of origins are scientifically controversial because they often amount to subjective historical narratives that seek to explain unobserved and unobservable singular past events that occurred many years ago and that cannot be adequately tested in the laboratory. They are religiously controversial because all religions, including non-theistic religions, depend on a particular origins narrative. Intelligent Design proponents believe institutions of science, including government agencies, public schools and universities, should strive for objectivity and academic freedom in facilitating origins teaching and research. Objectivity in the evaluation and interpretation of material evidence ensures that all evidence-based explanations for natural phenomena can be considered fairly on their respective merits, regardless of their ultimate metaphysical or religious implications. Institutions of science should promote objectivity and academic freedom, especially where minority viewpoints challenge scientific orthodoxy.

Despite its many strengths, many biblical creationists, while acknowledging those strengths, criticize the Intelligent Design theory for refusing to specify the identity of the designer, refusing to bring the Christian God and the Bible into the picture, and for accepting long ages and a theistic theory of evolution.


Scientists who hold Darwinism dogmatically object to the common sense approach, not based on the fact of design, but on the metaphysical implications of considering true, intelligent design. Attempting to conflate the "what" of design with the "who" in biological systems is the tactic of those philosophically opposed to a supposed supernatural designer, i.e., those who fear a "divine foot in the door" of science. But such fear should not be tolerated by true scientists; design can be detected independent of any inquiry into the identity of the designer. Imagine archeology being rejected as science because there is absolutely no way to identify the designer of a clearly designed pot; such notions should be rejected by true scientists. Permitting the logical, common sense inference of intelligent design in the face of material evidence of design should be expected of honest scientists.

Evidence for Intelligent Design in Nature


Phillip E. Johnson, Jefferson E. Peyser Professor of Law, Emeritus
Virtually all scientists, including evolutionists,[26] observe design in nature. Fossils exhibit design. Living body plans exhibit design. Micro-biological features such as DNA exhibit design. The evidentiary question is not a question of the existence of design in nature, but the cause of design in nature.

Only two causes are available to explain the design evident in nature: unintelligent causes and intelligent causes. Unintelligent causes include the natural actions of physics and chemistry, operating alone by natural laws in space and time. Unintelligent causes cannot produce true design, so Darwinists dismiss the evident design in nature as merely the "appearance" of design.

Intelligent design proponent Phillip E. Johnson illustrates the obstinancy of evolutionary scientists to recognize intelligent causation of design in nature when he wrote the following:


Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA
“   "One of the world's most famous scientists, probably the most famous living biologist, is Sir Francis Crick, the British co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, a Nobel Prize winner...In his autobiography, Crick says very candidly biologists must remind themselves daily that what they study was not created, it evolved; it was not designed, it evolved. Why do they have to remind themselves of that? Because otherwise, the facts which are staring them in the face and trying to get their attention might break through. What we discovered when I developed a working group of scientists, philosophers, et al., in the United States was that living organisms look as if they were designed and they look that way because that is exactly what they are."[27]   ”
Intelligent causes include the actions of an intelligent agent (which may be unknown, such as in anonymous works of art, or in archeological finds) manipulating physics and chemistry to create something that physics and chemistry alone cannot. Only intelligent causes can produce true design.

The question is not, therefore, "is there evidence of design in nature?" Rather, the scientific question is, "Based on the evidence of design observed in nature, what causes best explain design?" Framed this way, potential explanations, or theories, are not limited by a predetermined bias, such as only unintelligent causes (e.g., Darwinism) or only intelligent causes (e.g., creationism). The question simply asks, "in accordance with the scientific method, what causes can be logically inferred from the evidence?"

With the proper question in mind, it is easy to see that virtually all the evidence used to support Darwinism is equally evidence in support of Intelligent Design. Cosmological evidence for design is described at Evidence for intelligent design in cosmology section. Biological evidence for intelligent design includes general evidence and special evidence, and both are discussed at General and Special Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology. For all material evidence, the evidentiary value can be determined by use of the Evidence Filter.

Anthropic principle

There is a strong body of evidence for a Designer that comes from the fine-tuning of the universal constants and the solar system.[28]

The anthropic principle states that the reason the constants of nature appear so finely tuned to life, is that if it were otherwise, life such as ourselves would not have developed. Hence we should not be surprised that the laws of physics are enable life such as ourselves to exist.

Former atheist Sir Fred Hoyle states, "commonsense interpretation of the facts is that a super-intelligence has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces in nature."[28]

Examples of Intelligent Design Theory Used in Science

Forensic scientists use design detection when they consider observable evidence of an historic unrepeatable event such as a crime.
Intelligent design detection is uncontroversial in many well-accepted scientific disciplines. In each of the scientific disciplines listed below, scientists evaluate the evidence objectively, that is, there is no pre-determined rule of interpretation that dictates that only unintelligent causes can be considered.

Forensic sciences: Forensic scientists use design detection when they consider observable evidence of an historic unrepeatable event such as a crime. For example, a forensic investigator investigating a death uses scientific evidence to determine whether the death was caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., by accident), or by intelligent causes (i.e., murder).

Archeology: Archaeologists are virtually dependent upon the science of design detection. Working with present-day evidence left from the past, archaeologists seek to determine whether artifacts were caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., clay) or intelligent causes (i.e., a clay pot).

Cryptanalysis: Cryptanalysis is the scientific endeavor of code breaking. Code breakers examine the observable evidence of a string or pattern of characters to determine if it contains a message or if it is simply a string of random, meaningless characters.

Arson investigation: Arson investigators observe evidence and attempt to explain the cause of a fire; was it caused by unintelligent causes (i.e., accidental ignition), or by intelligent causes (i.e., arson).

Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence: The name says it all. These scientists are observing evidence in the form of radio signals to determine if the signals are the result of unintelligent causes (i.e., background radiation in space), or by intelligent causes (i.e., extraterrestrial intelligence).

Each of the above scientific disciplines utilize design detection to determine if the cause of observed evidence is due to unintelligent or intelligent agency. Usually, such as in the case of archaeologists observing clay pots, the detection and determination of design is intuitive and assumed without further justification. No rigorous analytical method is required of archaeologists to support a finding of design; nothing beyond the simple, rational recognition of what is consistent with the human experience of intelligent design is necessary.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Intelligent_design#Evidence_for_Intelligent_Design_in_Nature
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.


oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1261


View Profile
« Reply #2446 on: 08 April 2018, 14:37:56 PM »

This is from " Conservapedia"

Conservapedia /kənˈsɜːrvəˈpidiə/ is an English-language wiki encyclopedia project written from an American conservative point of view. The website was started in 2006 by American homeschool teacher and attorney Andrew Schlafly, son of conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly,[3][4] to counter what he perceived as a liberal bias present in Wikipedia.[5][6] It uses editorials and a wiki-based system to generate content.

Examples of Conservapedia's ideology include its accusations against and strong criticism of former U.S. President Barack Obama,[7] atheism, the Democratic Party, evolution, and Wikipedia's alleged liberal bias. Furthermore, it views the theory of relativity as promoting moral relativism,[8] claims there is a proven link between abortion and breast cancer, praises a number of Republican politicians, supports celebrities and artistic works that it views as advocating moral standards in line with Christian family values, and accepts fundamentalist Christian doctrines such as Young Earth creationism.[9][10] Conservapedia's "Conservative Bible Project" is a crowd-sourced version of the Bible which Conservapedia claims will be "free of corruption by liberal untruths".[11]

The site has received negative reactions from the mainstream media, as well as from notable political figures, including commentators and journalists,[12][13] and has been criticized by liberal and conservative critics alike for bias and inaccuracies.[14][15][16]
Logged
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1327



View Profile
« Reply #2447 on: 09 April 2018, 4:02:52 AM »

This is from " Conservapedia"

Conservapedia /kənˈsɜːrvəˈpidiə/ is an English-language wiki encyclopedia project written from an American conservative point of view. The website was started in 2006 by American homeschool teacher and attorney Andrew Schlafly, son of conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly,[3][4] to counter what he perceived as a liberal bias present in Wikipedia.[5][6] It uses editorials and a wiki-based system to generate content.

Examples of Conservapedia's ideology include its accusations against and strong criticism of former U.S. President Barack Obama,[7] atheism, the Democratic Party, evolution, and Wikipedia's alleged liberal bias. Furthermore, it views the theory of relativity as promoting moral relativism,[8] claims there is a proven link between abortion and breast cancer, praises a number of Republican politicians, supports celebrities and artistic works that it views as advocating moral standards in line with Christian family values, and accepts fundamentalist Christian doctrines such as Young Earth creationism.[9][10] Conservapedia's "Conservative Bible Project" is a crowd-sourced version of the Bible which Conservapedia claims will be "free of corruption by liberal untruths".[11]

The site has received negative reactions from the mainstream media, as well as from notable political figures, including commentators and journalists,[12][13] and has been criticized by liberal and conservative critics alike for bias and inaccuracies.[14][15][16]

There are no inaccuracies. All information is scientifically accurate. Critics are negative because the accurate information conflicts with what they want to believe.
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1261


View Profile
« Reply #2448 on: 09 April 2018, 13:27:33 PM »

Quote
 
There are no inaccuracies. All information is scientifically accurate. Critics are negative because the accurate information conflicts with what they want to believe. 

You entitled to your opinion.
Logged
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1327



View Profile
« Reply #2449 on: 14 April 2018, 23:38:55 PM »

Genetic Distances 3


 Humans vs. Chimpanzees. Evolutionists say that the chimpanzee is the closest living relative to humans. For two decades (1984–2004), evolutionists and the media claimed that human DNA is about 99% similar to chimpanzee DNA. These statements had little scientific justification, because they were made before anyone had completed the sequencing of human DNA and long before the sequencing of chimpanzee DNA had begun.

Chimpanzee and human DNA have now been completely sequenced and compared. The overall differences are far greater and more complicated than evolutionists suspected (g). Divergencies include about “thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertions or deletions, and various chromosomal rearrangements (h).” Although it is only 4% of the DNA, a vast DNA chasm of critical differences separates humans from chimpanzees.

Moreover, differences between the male portion of the human and chimpanzee sex chromosome are huge! More than 30% of those sequences, in either the human or the chimpanzee, do not match the other at all, and those that do, contain massive rearrangements (i). The genetic differences are comparable to those between the nonsex chromosomes in chickens and humans (j).

Finally, evolutionary trees, based on the outward appearance of organisms, can now be compared with the organisms’ genetic information.  They conflict in major ways  (k).

g.   After sequencing just the first chimpanzee chromosome, surprises were apparent.

“Surprisingly, though, nearly 68,000 stretches of DNA do differ to some degree between the two species…Extra sections of about 300 nucleotides showed up primarily in the human chromosome…Extra sections of other sizes—some as long as 54,000 nucleotides—appear in both species.” Bruce Bower, “Chimp DNA Yields Complex Surprises,” Science News, Vol. 165, 12 June 2004, p. 382.

“Indeed, 83% of the 231 coding sequences, including functionally important genes, show differences [even] at the amino acid sequence level….the biological consequences due to the genetic differences are much more complicated than previously speculated.” H. Watanabe et al., “DNA Sequence and Comparative Analysis of Chimpanzee Chromosome 22,” Nature, Vol. 429, 27 May 2004, pp. 382, 387.

h.   Tarjei S. Mikkelsen et al., “Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome and Comparison with the Human Genome,” Nature, Vol. 437, 1 September 2005, p. 69.

i. “Surprisingly, however, >30% of chimpanzee MSY [male-specific portion of the Y chromosome] sequence has no homologous, alignable counterpart in the human MSY, and vice versa. ... Moreover, the MSY sequences retained in both lineages have been extraordinarily subject to rearrangement ... .” Jennifer F. Hughes et al., “Chimpanzee and Human Y Chromosomes Are Remarkably Divergent in Structure and Gene Content,” Nature, Vol. 463, 28 January 2010, p. 537.

j. “... the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation.” Ibid. p. 538.

k. “Instead, the comparisons [using DNA] have yielded many versions of the tree of life that differ from the rRNA tree and conflict with each other as well.” Elizabeth Pennisi, “Is It Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?” Science, Vol. 284, 21 May 1999, p. 1305.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1261


View Profile
« Reply #2450 on: 15 April 2018, 14:50:16 PM »

As usual, our Walt quotes out of date information.
See this link to the American Museum of Natural History.

https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/permanent-exhibitions/human-origins-and-cultural-halls/anne-and-bernard-spitzer-hall-of-human-origins/understanding-our-past/dna-comparing-humans-and-chimps/
Logged
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1261


View Profile
« Reply #2451 on: 15 April 2018, 15:54:10 PM »

If all the creatures were created individually, why do they share any genes at all?
Logged
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1327



View Profile
« Reply #2452 on: 17 April 2018, 2:55:12 AM »

If all the creatures were created individually, why do they share any genes at all?


Probably because they all share a similar environment.
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1261


View Profile
« Reply #2453 on: 17 April 2018, 18:27:51 PM »

Quote
If all the creatures were created individually, why do they share any genes at all?


Probably because they all share a similar environment.
   

Then how do you explain the huge differences between fish and Cetacea ?
Logged
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1327



View Profile
« Reply #2454 on: 17 April 2018, 23:29:01 PM »

Quote
If all the creatures were created individually, why do they share any genes at all?


Probably because they all share a similar environment.
   

Then how do you explain the huge differences between fish and Cetacea ?


God created those differences.
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1327



View Profile
« Reply #2455 on: 21 May 2018, 1:37:33 AM »

Genetic Information 1

Information never self-assembles. The genetic information in the DNA of each human cell is roughly equivalent to a library of 4,000 books (a).

a. Carl Sagan showed, using straight-forward calculations, why one cell’s worth of genetic information is the equivalent of 4,000 books of printed information. Each of Sagan’s 4,000 books had 500 pages with 300 words per page. {See Carl Sagan, The Dragons of Eden (New York: Random House, 1977), p. 25.}

Each book would have a volume of about 50 cubic inches. An adult human’s body contains about 10^14 (10 to the 14th power) cells. About 800 cubic miles have been eroded from the Grand Canyon. Therefore, we can say that if every cell in one person’s body were reduced to 4,000 books, th
ey would fill the Grand Canyon 98 times.

The Moon is 240,000 miles from Earth. If the DNA in a human cell were stretched out and connected, it would be more than 7 feet long. If all this DNA in one person’s body were placed end-to-end, it would extend to the Moon 552,000 times.

The DNA in a human cell weighs 6.4 x 10^-12 (10 to the –12 power) grams. [See Monroe W. Strickberger, Genetics, 2nd edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1976), p. 54.] Probably less than 50 billion people have lived on earth. If so, one copy of the DNA of every human who ever lived—enough to define the physical characteristics of all those people in microscopic detail—would weigh only 6.4 × 10^-12 × 50 × 10^9  =  0.32 grams.
This is less than the weight of one aspirin.

“... there is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over. ... There is enough storage capacity in the DNA of a single lily seed or a single salamander sperm to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica 60 times over. Some species of the unjustly called ‘primitive’ amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1,000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas.”  Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, pp. 116–117.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1261


View Profile
« Reply #2456 on: 21 May 2018, 14:15:40 PM »

Irreducible complexity again.
I note with interest that Walt quotes Dawkins, a prominent and articulate atheist, to support his fantasy.
Logged
Pahu
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1327



View Profile
« Reply #2457 on: 22 May 2018, 0:29:50 AM »

Irreducible complexity again.
I note with interest that Walt quotes Dawkins, a prominent and articulate atheist, to support his fantasy.

Brown's conclusions are based on science, not fantasy. He quotes many scientists, some who are atheists, who support his conclusions. For example:

Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Richard Dawkins Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, A. C. Noé, Henry H. Hsieh etc.

The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:

American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Geology
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts
Logged

Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
oldmike
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1261


View Profile
« Reply #2458 on: 22 May 2018, 2:04:16 AM »

Are you saying that all these people think that the universe is 6000 years old?
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 162 163 [164]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines