The Failure Of Evolution Theory . . . in a nutshell, information

[Ringtone]

The human body is riddled with errors ?
Clearly not a design by a higher being ?

Entropy and genomic denigration, which, by the way, undermines evolutionary theory, disproves intelligent design? How so?

 

[Ringtone]

Ringtone: Actually, from geological deposits and the earliest fossils, we do know the environmental conditions that generally prevailed when life first appeared. The atmosphere was generally oxidizing

Are you sure?

By the way, Toddsterpatriot, did you ever acknowledge your ignorance regarding the atmospheric conditions? I must have missed your acknowledgement. When you do, be sure to thank me for once again enlightening you. Double space if necessary.

Also, did you ever post your proof that mutations have actually been observed to add new information to the genome or did you crap your pants again? Don't forget the link. I know you're big on those . . . except when you're not.

Thanks.

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #522 again.

 

[Ringtone]

Blow it out of yer ass.

Hey, Chuckles, does Brahman pop out of existence every time someone logically and mathematically proves the impossibility of an actual infinite in the spacetime continuum . . . or did he finally pop out of existence in your mind after science falsified the possibility of his existence?

You never got back to me on that.

Also, did you ever acknowledge the fact that I utterly destroyed virtually everything that came out of your mouth about abiogenesis, and the imperatives of logic and mathematics relative to God's existence?

By the way, your guff about observing an instance of abiogenesis was a real hoot! Be sure to thank me for lacing you up on . . . well, virtually everything you talked about.

It was a real pleasure beating your ass black and blue.

Thanks.

PS: be sure to review my scathing excoriation of your drooling stupidity about observing abiogenesis.

 

[Hollie]

The human body is riddled with errors ?
Clearly not a design by a higher being ?

Entropy and genomic denigration, which, by the way, undermines evolutionary theory, disproves intelligent design? How so?

“... genomic denigration”™.

There’s buffoonish and then there’s Ringtone buffoonish.

How does genomic denigration™ undermine evolutionary theory when you invent these buffoonish slogans which are.... just awful. ?

 

[Quasar44]

The human body is riddled with errors ?
Clearly not a design by a higher being ?

Entropy and genomic denigration, which, by the way, undermines evolutionary theory, disproves intelligent design? How so?

Entropy has nothing to do with evolution??
99.99 percent of all species on earth are extinct
Surely a gods design would never be this high

 

[Ringtone]

Hey, Chuckles the toobfreak, just for shits and giggles, let's review the scientific falsification of Hindu cosmology again. . . .

Science has recently caught up with what logic and mathematics have told us all along about entities of space, time, matter and energy. The physical world cannot be an actual infinite. It’s almost as if the imperatives of logic, mathematics and science do falsify Hindu epistemology, such as is. It’s almost as if they falsify Hindu ontology, theology and cosmology too. It’s almost as if God does reveal his existence and a number of truths about his actual nature after all via the rational forms and logical categories of human cognition.

Hot damn!

It’s almost as if you’ve been wrong all these many years of your unexamined existence.

In scientific terms:

Our theorem shows that null and timelike geodesics are past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition H av > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics {i.e., as distinguished from those of higher dimensions], when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time" ( Borde-Guth-Vilenkin).​

This theorem extends to cyclical inflationary models and the inflationary models of multiverse as well. The physical universe at large, regardless of the chronological or the cosmological order of its structure, cannot overcome the thermodynamics of entropy.

Joined by others, Vilenkin summarizes the matter as follows:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many World in One; New York: Hill and Wang, 2006, pg. 176).​

 

[Quasar44]

Evolution is 100 percent fact
I could give many examples ..I am not
Denying evolution only means you’re either a religious nut or science illiterate

If evolution was fact, then I could give you examples. But it doesn't explain what was before the big bang, nor beginning of time, nor space, nor the energy that would be needed for expansion of the universe. It's a question of what came first -- energy or matter? And someone like you doesn't have a clue.

Correct. Biological evolution doesn't explain what was before the big bang, nor beginning of time, nor space, nor the energy.

Did you believe biological evolution was supposed to explain what was before the beginning of life? That is a complete lack of understanding of the process of evolution.

I'm referring to atheist cosmology and evolutionary thinking. It goes to show you don't know about these areas.

Is there atheist cosmology as opposed to fundamentalist Christian cosmology? Tell us about fundamentalist Christian cosmology. What are the basic principles of fundamentalist Christian cosmology?

As to evolutionary thinking, what, exactly, is that?

You've given us your thoughts on supernatural creation, a young earth and literal "Biblical thinking'' but most of the planet accepts the fact that your literalist ''Biblical thinking'' is wrong. How to you account for that?

God gives us the correct order of how everything was created in Genesis in seven days. OTOH, none of you can answer how the Earth, universe, and everything in it originated. Look at the OP. He claims evolution is fact and is too stupid to explain it.

They can isotope date the earth to 4-5 billion yrs but I sure you won’t find that in the Bible

First, the Bible states God will not let us know the age of the Earth. Some things he said he will keep to himself.

It's radioisotope dating which gives long ages. The problem is if one dates the same rocks using different radioisotopes such as potassium-argon, rubidium-strontium, uranium-lead, or samarium-neodymium, then they give different ages of long time. On the creation science side, we can still use C-14 radiocarbon dating because the C-14 still exist. That will give us a younger Earth.

The Bible is a great book for morals and ethics but a very lousy book on anything science

 

[Quasar44]

Evolution is 100 percent fact
I could give many examples ..I am not
Denying evolution only means you’re either a religious nut or science illiterate

If evolution was fact, then I could give you examples. But it doesn't explain what was before the big bang, nor beginning of time, nor space, nor the energy that would be needed for expansion of the universe. It's a question of what came first -- energy or matter? And someone like you doesn't have a clue.

Correct. Biological evolution doesn't explain what was before the big bang, nor beginning of time, nor space, nor the energy.

Did you believe biological evolution was supposed to explain what was before the beginning of life? That is a complete lack of understanding of the process of evolution.

I'm referring to atheist cosmology and evolutionary thinking. It goes to show you don't know about these areas.

Is there atheist cosmology as opposed to fundamentalist Christian cosmology? Tell us about fundamentalist Christian cosmology. What are the basic principles of fundamentalist Christian cosmology?

As to evolutionary thinking, what, exactly, is that?

You've given us your thoughts on supernatural creation, a young earth and literal "Biblical thinking'' but most of the planet accepts the fact that your literalist ''Biblical thinking'' is wrong. How to you account for that?

God gives us the correct order of how everything was created in Genesis in seven days. OTOH, none of you can answer how the Earth, universe, and everything in it originated. Look at the OP. He claims evolution is fact and is too stupid to explain it.

The flaw with your magical thinking is that the men who wrote the Bibles got the order of events in the Genesis fable wrong.

The humans just transcribed God's word. Science backs up the order of what is in Genesis. Your atheist theories have no order, events, or a logical argument for the beginning. Thus, evolution is usually wrong.

No. There is no evidence humans transcribed any words of your gods. Fundamentalist Christians are always wrong about science matters.

Science does not back up the order of what is in Genesis.

The Scientific Method provides an orderly synthesis of hypothesis, theory and testable conclusion. So there’s that. The fundies screeching out “the gods did it” is simply another appeal to fear and ignorance.

Evolution is about as factual as any science fact

 

[Turtlesoup]

Denying evolution is utter stupidity

Believing that evolution is true is utter stupidity.

Its been proven babe--------evolution is actually a quick process....which ia why man was able to make wolves into tiny Yorkshire terrier dogs.

That's not evolution

it's evolution-----you take a wolf and make it a tiny dog--different species. (this done by man selective breeding) is the same as evolution of the fittest in nature. I'm sure that you don't want to argue that wolves are the same species as dogs now do you?

 

[Hollie]

Evolution is 100 percent fact
I could give many examples ..I am not
Denying evolution only means you’re either a religious nut or science illiterate

If evolution was fact, then I could give you examples. But it doesn't explain what was before the big bang, nor beginning of time, nor space, nor the energy that would be needed for expansion of the universe. It's a question of what came first -- energy or matter? And someone like you doesn't have a clue.

Correct. Biological evolution doesn't explain what was before the big bang, nor beginning of time, nor space, nor the energy.

Did you believe biological evolution was supposed to explain what was before the beginning of life? That is a complete lack of understanding of the process of evolution.

I'm referring to atheist cosmology and evolutionary thinking. It goes to show you don't know about these areas.

Is there atheist cosmology as opposed to fundamentalist Christian cosmology? Tell us about fundamentalist Christian cosmology. What are the basic principles of fundamentalist Christian cosmology?

As to evolutionary thinking, what, exactly, is that?

You've given us your thoughts on supernatural creation, a young earth and literal "Biblical thinking'' but most of the planet accepts the fact that your literalist ''Biblical thinking'' is wrong. How to you account for that?

God gives us the correct order of how everything was created in Genesis in seven days. OTOH, none of you can answer how the Earth, universe, and everything in it originated. Look at the OP. He claims evolution is fact and is too stupid to explain it.

The flaw with your magical thinking is that the men who wrote the Bibles got the order of events in the Genesis fable wrong.

The humans just transcribed God's word. Science backs up the order of what is in Genesis. Your atheist theories have no order, events, or a logical argument for the beginning. Thus, evolution is usually wrong.

No. There is no evidence humans transcribed any words of your gods. Fundamentalist Christians are always wrong about science matters.

Science does not back up the order of what is in Genesis.

The Scientific Method provides an orderly synthesis of hypothesis, theory and testable conclusion. So there’s that. The fundies screeching out “the gods did it” is simply another appeal to fear and ignorance.

Evolution is about as factual as any science fact

Definitely. Except in the minds of YEC'ists such as Ringtone.

 

[Quasar44]

Denying evolution is utter stupidity

Believing that evolution is true is utter stupidity.

Its been proven babe--------evolution is actually a quick process....which ia why man was able to make wolves into tiny Yorkshire terrier dogs.

That's not evolution

it's evolution-----you take a wolf and make it a tiny dog--different species. (this done by man selective breeding) is the same as evolution of the fittest in nature. I'm sure that you don't want to argue that wolves are the same species as dogs now do you?

Same concept with plants and vegetables that man has made by slightly changing the conditions

 

[LuckyDuck]

The Failure Of Evolution Theory
by Christian von Wielligh


Excerpt:

For neo-Darwinism to be plausible, it must overcome the problem of the origin of new biological information. Firstly, it must be able to explain where the enormous quantity of information came from to produce the very first living organism (even if it was a simple single-celled organism). And secondly, it must be able to give an accurate account of how existing organisms gain new information, because without it they cannot evolve into more advanced forms with new body plans.​

​

Neo-Darwinists place their trust in random mutations (aided by natural selection) to generate new information. But mutations, which are copying errors, cause the loss of, or corrupt, existing genetic information. Small-scale changes due to mutations are insufficient to cause evolution, and various experiments have shown that large-scale changes are harmful and lead to the early deaths of organisms.​

​

So it’s not surprising that the examples of evolution by mutations that are included in our textbooks and presented by the media comprise of the loss of information. And although mutations can sometimes be beneficial, such as the defective gene in Tomcod fish that enable them to live in PCB-polluted water, such small-scale changes does not cause creatures to evolve into new types of creatures. A fish with mutations is still a fish.​

​

Natural selection is also often used in an attempt to convince us that evolution actually happens. But this too cannot generate new information. It can only ‘select’ traits from a pool of existing genetic information (that may include mutations) to produce an assortment of animals of the same kind. Darwin’s Galapagos finches with their various beak sizes, is such an example. Although variations occur between these finches, they’re all still finches. They didn’t evolve into something new.​

Read More

Also, get a copy of The Collapse of Darwinism: How Medical Science Proves Evolution by Natural Selection is a Failed Theory

Excerpt:

Most people intuitively understand that Darwin's theory of evolution-natural selection acting upon random mutations-is a wholly inadequate theory for the creation of a human being. And most people feel unprepared to debate those scientists, professors, and scholars who use their academic authority to defend Darwinism, often bullying and belittling those of us who dare doubt Darwin.​

​

Now, Bredemeier identifies and succinctly encapsulates why Darwinism fails. Using anatomy and physiology as only a physician can, Bredemeier exposes the errors and false logic that Darwinian acolytes continue to employ as they protect their mortally wounded theory. Any reader with a high school or college education will become armed with straightforward examples of exactly why Darwinism fails.​

​

From anatomy and physiology of the human body-including neuroscience, genetics, embryology, and other fascinating fields of the increasingly numerous biological sciences-Bredemeier provides indisputable and damning evidence for which academicians, scientists, and even Nobel laureates, who zealously defend Darwinism, have no adequate answer.​

How about...."The failure of deists to provide the slightest shred of evidence to prove the existence of an "all-powerful, all-knowing, invisible being (that we just happen to look like.....there's the height of egotism), that created the universe and all in it."

 

[Ringtone]

How about...."The failure of deists to provide the slightest shred of evidence to prove the existence of an "all-powerful, all-knowing, invisible being (that we just happen to look like.....there's the height of egotism), that created the universe and all in it."

How about you see the above and stop spouting slogans?

 

[Ringtone]

Entropy has nothing to do with evolution??
99.99 percent of all species on earth are extinct
Surely a gods design would never be this high

I didn't say it did. Entropy and genomic denigration is a plural noun phrase; the verb undermines is for singular predicates, which, therefore, strictly goes to denigration, the noun that the determinate, adjectival phrase immediately modifies. Grammar 101. The observation that entropy does not disprove intelligent design either is of equal importance.

 

[Hollie]

Entropy has nothing to do with evolution??
99.99 percent of all species on earth are extinct
Surely a gods design would never be this high

I didn't say it did. Entropy and genomic denigration is a plural noun phrase; the verb undermines is for singular predicates, which, therefore, strictly goes to denigration, the noun that the determinate, adjectival phrase immediately modifies. Grammar 101. The observation that entropy does not disprove intelligent design either is of equal importance.

Is genomic denigration™ a subject you studied at the Jimmy Swaggert Academy for the Silly?

 

[Hollie]

Entropy has nothing to do with evolution??
99.99 percent of all species on earth are extinct
Surely a gods design would never be this high

I didn't say it did. Entropy and genomic denigration is a plural noun phrase; the verb undermines is for singular predicates, which, therefore, strictly goes to denigration, the noun that the determinate, adjectival phrase immediately modifies. Grammar 101. The observation that entropy does not disprove intelligent design either is of equal importance.

"Entropy and genomic denigration is a plural noun phrase''

You just can't escape your typical buffoonery.

 

[Ringtone]

"Entropy and genomic denigration is a plural noun phrase''

You just can't escape your typical buffoonery.

So you and Toddsterpatriot, apparently, who gave your tripe a thumbs up, are implying that it's a singular noun (or nounal) phrase? How tall was Alice this time, Madcap?

 

[Hollie]

"Entropy and genomic denigration is a plural noun phrase''

You just can't escape your typical buffoonery.

So you and Toddsterpatriot, apparently, who gave your tripe a thumbs up, are implying that it's a singular noun (or nounal) phrase? How tall was Alice this time, Madcap?

"genomic denigration™

"Entropy and genomic denigration is a plural noun phrase''

So... you studied both science and Grammer 101 at the Benny Hinn Madrasdah or was is it at Harun Yahya?

 

[james bond]

No. There is no evidence humans transcribed any words of your gods. Fundamentalist Christians are always wrong about science matters.

Science does not back up the order of what is in Genesis.

The Scientific Method provides an orderly synthesis of hypothesis, theory and testable conclusion. So there’s that. The fundies screeching out “the gods did it” is simply another appeal to fear and ignorance.

There is no point in answering you questions. You haven't learned anything about the Bible, creationists, their great scientists, and all their contributions to the history of humankind. What kind of fool are you?

 

[james bond]

The Bible is a great book for morals and ethics but a very lousy book on anything science

The Bible isn't a science book, but science backs up the Bible.

Evolution is about as factual as any science fact

Evolution is a fairy tale. The only thing is true is natural selection which was created by God.

You need to learn what facts are. If something is a fact, then both sides (or everyone) can use it. For example, the sky is blue. US money is green.