Re: I have another argument that needs refuting

shinryuken88@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
The argument :

An awful lot of pure BS here; I'll just touch on a few easy ones:

Evolution states that everything in the universe came from nothing
about 20 billion years ago(by the way that number has increased
throughout the years).

.....except that the generally accepted figure is now ~13Gyrs...which is less than 20Gyrs. What was he saying about "increased"? Note also the implication that cosmologists refind their estimates due to better data is somehow a Bad Thing.

.....They say that the entire universe was compacted
down to a speck no bigger then a period. This dot spun faster and
faster until it exploded into the universe.

As a description of the Big Bang it is, to be charitable, oversimplified.

.....Then in a step by step
process (through mutations, which are 99.99% negative and lots of the
time deadly, and natural selection) life started. Random chemicals came
together to create bacteria which eventually became man. Let me ask one
question before starting. Where did the dot come from?

Don't know. Saying "God put it there" is not an answer -- it's a logically equivalent (but dishonest) way of saying "I don't know".


The scientific method is based on observation and experimentation. It
is impossible to prove scientifically both theories of origin. Why?
Because no one was there to observe the beginning and we can not
experiment with the beginning. So why is it that creation is referred
to as a religion while evolution is called science? Evolution is a
religion also, because it can not be scientifically proven. All we can
do is study the evidence and see which religion makes the most sense.

Let me begin with biology. Extraordinary design and adaptation are
found throughout nature in such abundance, perfection and complexity as
to utterly defy evolutionary explanation. Most of these structures and
abilities simply could not have evolved piece by piece, because they
are only useful when perfect and complete. The complexity, diversity,
beauty, order and astonishing perfection of life forms defy evolution.
There are fascinating interrelationships where species are absolutely
dependant on each other. Such as mimicry, symbiosis, and parasitism.
These things clearly indicate purposeful and intelligent design.

Parasitism? So: God likes animals who eat other animals alive from the inside? Did the author bother to think of the *theological* implications of what he was writing?

Lets start with a species we are all familiar with. Ourselves. George
Gallup, founder of the Gallup polls, states, "Take the human body
alone, the chance that all the functions of the individual could just
happen, is a statistical monstrosity." But lets forget about the whole
human body and all it's complexity. Like the respiratory system, the
circulatory system, the nervous system, the immensely complicated
brain, or the extremely detailed DNA strand. Lets just focus on one
small body part; the eye.

The human eye has automatic aiming, automatic focusing , and automatic
aperture adjustment. It can function in almost complete darkness and in
bright sunlight. It can see an object the diameter of fine hair and it
makes about one hundred thousand separate motions in an average day!
Not only that, but while you sleep it carries on its own maintenance
work. The eye is so complex that scientists today still do not fully
understand it. Scientist R.L. Wysong says that, "granting evolutionist

Fallacy of Argument From Authority. Note how he just identifies Wysong as a "scientist", so you should just believe him implicitly, without showing how he *worked out* this ridiculous number of his. Other scientists disagree with him (check the t.o FAQ for evolution of the eye, including the paper by Nilsson and <mumble>).

generous concessions, the probability for the chance formation of the
eye is 1 in 10 to the 266th power! That's 1 in 10 with 266 zeros after
it! (1, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000,
000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000,
000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000,
000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000,
000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000,
000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000,
000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000)!! Mathematicians state that anything
with a probability less then 1 in 10 to the 50th power is impossible.
And evolutionary theory calls for the chance development of the eye
multiple times. For example, squids, vertebrates, arthropods, etc.,
etc. Basically evolution requires the impossible to happen over and
over again.

[snip]

How about another insect? The Bombardier Beetle for example. Whenever
threatened, this little creature blasts irritating and odious gases,
which are 212*F, from two tailpipes into its enemies face. The beetle
makes this by combining two very dangerous chemicals, hydroquinone and
hydrogen peroxide, along with an inhibitor that prevents the chemicals
from exploding and allows the beetle to store the chemicals safely.
When attacked, it squirts the stored chemicals into two combustion
tubes and at precisely the right moment it adds another chemical, an
anti-inhibitor. This neutralizes the inhibitor, and causes a violent
explosion in the face of the attacker.

Well, according to evolutionary thinking, there must have been
thousands of generations of beetles improperly mixing these chemicals
and blowing themselves to pieces, eventually arriving at the precise
formula. But wait a minute! What about the devolvement of the
inhibitor? You see, there's no reason to "evolve" an inhibitor unless
you already have the two chemicals your trying to inhibit. But if you
all ready have the two chemicals it's too late! You've blown up. This
obviously requires intelligent foresight and planning.

This has been refuted for so long, it deserves the title of "lie". Check the t.o FAQ entry for bombardier beetle (and how Duane Gish continued to use the example even after someone demonstrated it to be false, in his personal presence).

In fact, that's enough time to waste. Instead of me/us going through all this, go to the t.o FAQ, and for each "argument", search the FAQ to see if there's an entry -- a brief skim indicates that a lot of them are already debunked there.

-- Kizhe

[rest of manure pile buried]

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Young Earth Creationist Arguments. Do they realize how they look?
    ... scientists though, ... I don't 'believe' in evolution, I merely accept it as the best ... I suppled a SCIENTIST who believes in the Creation. ... then show that there indeed are true scientists who do ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Young Earth Creationist Arguments. Do they realize how they look?
    ... scientists though, ... The only people who 'believe' that evolution is 'wrong' are those ... I suppled a SCIENTIST who believes in the Creation. ... then show that there indeed are true scientists who do ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Just who is immoral in the evolution debate?
    ... > the evolution THEORY. ... aspects of reality and then tryto find evidence to support or refute ... The mechanism behind evolution is a theory with less support, ... for the most part scientists aren't like that. ...
    (soc.religion.christian)
  • Re: News: Evolution Exposed on the Big Screen
    ... theory of evolution. ... FALSEHOOD #1 ... robust and thoroughly tested theories in any field of science. ... Evolutionary scientists, far from being an "elite group", have far ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A Challenge to Evolutionists
    ... FALSEHOOD #1 ... Scientists are generally as sane as anyone else. ... Evolutionary theory represents mainstream science ... Among the declarations that ran through the thread was that evolution ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading