Question:
Can atheists/evolutionists provide answers/rebuttal to these statements?
Bronson
2013-01-17 00:25:35 UTC
The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that a system will always go from order to disorder unless there is a plan or outside intelligence to organize it. (why isn’t universe a total mess by now?)

To produce a living thing you must start with a living thing. Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living organism and this has never been observed. A Biology textbook puts it like this: "As we have seen, the life of every organism comes from its parents or parent. Does life ever spring from nonliving matter? We can find no evidence of this happening. So far as we can tell, life comes only from life. Biologists call this the principal of biogenesis." (where is the evidence?)

Darwin said: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." (such a great theory that the founder himself calls it absurd)

If evolution was true, there should be large numbers of intermediate fossil organisms present in the fossil record. Despite over a hundred years of intensive worldwide research into the fossil record, the 'missing links' are still well and truly 'missing'. (where are the missing links?)

Evolutionist Sir Fred Hoyle concede this when they say "The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (time and chance) is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.'" (yet another evolutionist admitted to ridiculousness of the theory)

In a desperate attempt to override the very powerful argument that life could never arise by chance, Richard Dawkins conjectures that “If the odds of life originating spontaneously on a planet were a billion to one against …”A billion to one is only 1 in 10 to the 9th power. BUT the probability of even one single protein molecule consisting of 200 amino acids arising spontaneously by chance is 1 in 10 raised to power of 260. This is calculated by raising 20 (the number of different types amino acids available) to the power of 200 (the number of amino acids in the protein chain). Even if the whole universe was packed with amino acids combining frantically for billions of years, it would not produce even one such protein molecule let alone produce a living cell.

The leg bones for Lucy were found on mile and a half away from the head bones and a leg bones were two hundred feet deeper in different layers strata, they're not all found in the same layer strata, not even in the same location, they were scattered over a mile and a half

Bible never says that earth is 6000 years old, It is assumed by Christians that earth is “young” lets say 15000yrs or less, not millions of years old.

Evolution created dangerous people such as Hitler, Stalin and Lenin

micro evolution is minor changes in this structure and function of a plan animal and a macro evolution is something completely different and it's the teaching that one kind evolves into another and this is never been proven by science

carl sagan said in this simple cell we know anything about we have information equivalent to a hundred million pages of encyclopedia Britannica Cray computer can do six billion calculations per second as to compared the little honey bee can do a trillion calculations per second in order to fly that means a little honey bees a hundred and sixty six times faster than the Craycomputer and the honey bee can heal itself in but the conclusion of evolution is that cray computer has been designed and honeybee many more times complex hasn’t

conditions outside our solar system are far more destructive than probably anyone suspected before space exploration begin deadly radiation poisonous gases extreme gravitational forces gigantic explosions an absence of the proper atmosphere and specific chemical elements just a temperature extremes in outer space would make almost any kind of like either so hot that would vaporize or so cold that will be completely rigid brittle and dead

the earth is seventy nine hundred miles from the north to south pole it is just the right size to accept the exact right amount of energy from the sun and is exact distance from the sun give us a perfect temperature (many more examples of the preciseness of our earth to contain life)

after watching great barrier reef in Australia for twenty years they took a growth rate average and they found out that the reef is forty two hundred years old but how come we don't have a reef older than that
Nineteen answers:
fruitsalad
2013-01-17 00:51:50 UTC
Yes, those are all easy for someone with even a little bit of scientific knowledge like me. If you asked one question you would get sensible answers. I'll address points 2-4 since 1 has already been answered.



2. Life from non-life: firstly this is not related to evolution, but to a biochemical process known as abiogenesis, stages of which have already been observed in the laboratory. Within 20 years the process will have been observed.



3. Perhaps you are not aware, but science has moved on a long way since Darwin. We now understand thoroughly the ways eyes can evolve, and there are many species living today that demonstrate various stages of evolutionary eye development. A basic rundown is:

Start with simple light sensitive cells. These later evolve into a retina. The cells develop into a pit shape, both for protection and to catch light from different angles. Next a clear covering evolves, which later becomes the cornea, to protect the retina and to better focus the light. Next the iris can evolve as a diaphragm muscle to control the light. And lastly a lens evolves to allow focus of the light. The whole eye as found in humans does not need to suddenly evolve fully formed, the components of eyes work by themselves.



4. What missing links? We have fossils showing a huge range of evolutionary stages. Please list for us which two species you would like to know about and I'm sure someone here can let you know an intermediate species.



We know for an absolute certain fact that evolution occurs, it is observed in action every single day. Educate yourself and move into the nineteenth century, and maybe then you can move into the twentieth and twenty first after that.
2013-01-17 00:39:01 UTC
Second Law of Thermodynamics: Only applies to CLOSED systems. Earth and the Universe are NOT CLOSED SYSTEMS. Or did you miss that part of science class?



Irreducible complexity (i.e. "the eye is too complex to have evolved!"): First of all, you're quote-mining Darwin. Darwin went on to say that it is amazing that it DID evolve. Also, your argument ignores all organs/organelles that are simpler than the eye but that serve the same/similar purposes.



After that, I honestly stopped reading your post...it became apparent VERY quick that you're a trolling idiot that hasn't researched any of this stuff. You're just copy-pasting creationist questions that have ALREADY been debunked by every credible scientist ever.



Go die somewhere so the human race can evolve a little faster.
sgtcosgrove
2013-01-18 04:54:24 UTC
You're just regurgitating the lies aren't you?



1 LIE! The second law of thermodynamics concerns the entropy of energy. The sun is gaining entropy via nuclear fusion thus total system entropy on the earth can diminish and organization can increase. If "a system will always go from order to disorder unless there is a plan or outside intelligence to organize it" then snowflakes would be impossible with their six sides and mathematical structure.



2 INCOMPLETE "a biology text book" said so? Next time get a better one.Life consists of interacting, self replicating molecular systems. There are very reasonable theories backed by individual stage chemical reactions for the many parts of life. Where do you separate "basic life" from "interconnected self replicating molecules that consume energy and nutrients"?



3 LIE MISREPRESENTATION Darwin was asking a rhetorical question, he went on to write "Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life." Did you get tired of reading after that sentence or are you a FILTHY LIAR?



4 WILLFUL IGNORANCE Like what? Ambulocetus (the predecessor to whales) pre-avian theropods (the chain from dinosaur to bird, we found about 30 of them) the genus homo (the 12 or so links that connect us with ancient apelike creatures)? Which of these were never found, because I think the peopel that found them might disagree. Sure, there's still some missing links, but this is inevitable since only certain types of rock will produce fossils, we haven't cut apart every rock on earth looking for fossils and only 0.00001% of animals will die in the right way to create fossils.



5 LIE Fred Hoyle was an astronomer and mathematician and held no degrees in paleontology, biology, zoology or any field that deals with evolution. He was never an evolutionist. He was always an evolution denier.



6 LIE/MISQUOTE I can't find evidence of Dawkins saying this, yet Fred Hoyle said something similar . It was, in fact woefully ignorant of the way that amino acids combine. They do not combine randomly (so brute forcing them as numerical abstracts in a basic probability calculation is absurd) but follow the laws of physics and chemistry. for example H2O is water, H2O2 is hydrogen peroxide but H34O56 is a molecule that simple does not exist. Amino acids, similarly cannot for 99.999999999% of the possibilities in that calculation.



7 LIE Lucy's bone were found at one dig site. Lucy was a representative of the Australopithecus species. A second Australopithecus fossil was found a mile and a half away, not as well preserved as Lucy, but with better preserved leg fossils. Thus by taking two incomplete fossils we get a probable complete fossils of Australopithecus. This is REALLY EASY TO UNDERSTAND.



8. FALLACY The earth is perfect for life as we know it, but life can exist in many harsh environs like Antarctica, volcanic sea vents or the Gobi desert. Life will evolve to make use of the environment around it. Certain Bacteria can take 10,000 the dose of radiation that humans can. A just barely visible animal called a tardigrade was taken on the space shuttle, left outside and had a 50% survival rate after 10 days. Even if our planet is a 1 in a billion sort of planet that breeds life there are 400,000,000,000 stars in our own galaxy. Many, we have discovered, have planets orbiting them and the universe contains an estimated 100,000,000,000 galaxies. With 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars is it possible that a few might have at least one planet that hits the life chemistry jackpot?



9 BAD ASSUMPTION We don't have any older LIVING reefs. We have fossil reefs over a half billion years old. The living reef is not older because the world changes. A reef is a colony of animals that, after a larval phase, connects with others of its kind to form a stationary colony organism. If plate tectonics pushes the reef to dry land or to benthic water the reef dies. If a reef killing bacterial plague evolves the reef dies. If an ice age changes the water temperature too rapidly the reef dies. So obviously one of any number of things that can kill a reef killed the 4300 year old reef. Many reefs don't even last that long.



I had more but Yahoo said I'm over my character limit. It's like the ref calling the fight before you get punched to death. If you need any more LIES, IGNORANCE and WEAK PSEUDOSCIENCE debunked just get in touch.
More Moral Than God
2013-01-17 00:32:44 UTC
I stopped at your first paragraph because it is so painfully wrong, I could not go any farther.



"The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that a system will always go from order to disorder unless there is a plan or outside intelligence to organize it."



No, the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not say that. The 2nd law of thermodynamics, paraphrased so even you can (hopefully) understand it, says that in a closed system heat will dissipate equally until there all areas of the system are of equal temperature and there is no more heat difference to allow heat tranference.



Thermodynamics deals with heat, hence the word "thermo" in it's name and it deals with a closed system.



If you can't even get that simple thing right, I doubt the rest of your post makes sense either.
Pirate AM™
2013-01-17 00:36:49 UTC
You start up with a bad misstatement of Second Law of Thermodynamics and obviously do not understand what it means.



You then show that you are clueless about molecular biology and biochemistry and then rush on to making an out of context quote from Darwin.



I'm not going to point out each and every error you made, but I suggest that you try research each point or claim you think you made and see if you can spot your errors (it's not that hard, most of them are glaringly obvious)
?
2013-01-17 00:29:22 UTC
Yawn. If you can't be bothered to visit talkorigins.org and look up every point you think you're making here, I'm not going to bother regurgitating them here again.

.

Anytime I see the Second Law of Thermodynamics invoked I immediately know you have no idea what you are talking about. It refers to closed systems, which Earth is not. That's basic.
鵲 Magpie
2013-01-17 00:38:18 UTC
No it doesn't

No it doesn't

No, he didn't

No, they aren't

He was wrong.

False

Outright lie

Your problem, not mine--you're wrong either way

No, it didn't

No it isn't

So what?

So what?

False

But we have--there's fossilized coral in just the right places

I'm not a geologist

No, they didn't

Assumes that the rate has been linear and constant--no evidence of this





There you go.
Dreamstuff Entity
2013-01-17 00:30:13 UTC
Yes, but it won't matter to you, since you'll just repeat the same lies.



Let's start with the second law of thermodynamics. What is it? What do you say it is?
Jack
2013-01-17 00:31:24 UTC
I'm surprised that you can't find rebuttals to the statements you have provided. You must have a hard time thinking outside the box... Or the Bible has limited your thought process.
Sillypants
2013-01-17 00:32:19 UTC
You subscribe to the practice of "Baffle them with bu||$h!t!" Like your attempt to condense that 2nd law of thermodynamics.



I have only one thing to say: You have taken Darwin's comment out of context. He says something in one paragraph and then IMMEDIATELY takes it to task in rebuttal at the next paragraph.



GTFO here with your dishonest showmanship.
2013-01-17 00:35:34 UTC
Evolution is a fact and that fact proves that your god doesn't exist. Have a nice day.
2013-01-17 00:30:58 UTC
When we read of the "world" in the New Testament, we are reading the Greek word cosmos. Cosmos most often refers to the inhabited earth and the people who live on the earth, which functions apart from God. Satan is the ruler of this "cosmos" (John 12:31; 16:11; 1 John 5:19).



The 4 Veda's written in Sanskrit around 3500 years ago gave rise to Hinduism which teaches about Maya – The Malevolent illusion and Samsara – Mechanical Karma REALITY! - The outer Kingdom, empirical knowledge, and according to Christianity - "Seraphims" Keter - Crown Divine Plan ~ The Angel of Death.



Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.

Albert Einstein.



There is no greater mystery than this; that being the reality we seek to gain reality.

Sri Ramana Maharshi (December 30, 1879 – April 14, 1950)



Luke 15:11_32

The Parable of the Lost Son is a very good parable to read.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+15%3A11-32&version=NIV

----------------------------------------------



The Torah revealed to Moses around 3500 years ago teaches about The Sefirot: Keter (Crown) which are described as Angels! (G-d's Kingdom)

In Hinuism this is interpreted as - Sat Chit Ananda – Truth Consciousness Bliss.

And in the Bible - Luke 17-21 The kingdom of God within you.



All metaphysical discussion is profitless unless it causes us to seek within

the Self for the true reality. All controversies about creation, the nature of the

universe, evolution, the purpose of God, etc., are useless. They are not

conducive to our true happiness. People try to find out about things which

are outside of them before they try to find out "Who am I?" Only by the

latter means can happiness be gained.

Sri Ramana Maharshi (December 30, 1879 – April 14, 1950)
MaryAnne
2013-01-17 00:29:36 UTC
Where is your evidence of god? Shall I look around? Are you going to give me a passage from your book of magical fairy tales?
Lane
2013-01-17 00:28:47 UTC
I stopped reading at the incomplete Darwin quote. A lie by omission is still a lie.
Chris Ancor
2013-01-17 00:33:20 UTC
A long great wall of rant. Not read & not answered. Just reported instead.
Nick C
2013-01-17 00:26:54 UTC
TheoreticalBS on youtube would go crazy at tearing these statements apart.. Ir trying. I would love to see it.
♪♫♪♫ Robert ♪♫♪♫
2013-01-17 00:30:58 UTC
It's all assumption, including these statements.
vorenhutz
2013-01-17 00:35:36 UTC
yes
Wayne
2013-01-17 00:26:57 UTC
Asking atheists for answers is like asking Mick Jagger to settle down.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...