Links from redsky that disprove evolution
Posted on: August 20, 2009 - 8:56pm
Offline
Links from redsky that disprove evolution
(SPLIT OFF FROM THE WRONG THREAD)
I was hoping to help you out here, but I can't find any links that prove evolution. Sorry.
I can find a couple that disprove it if that's any good...
This first article proves that life can't start on its own.
http://www.icr.org/articles/print/4348/
This second article proves that even if life could start on its own, the first protein wouldn't appear until about 5 billion years time. (It takes 60,000 of these proteins in about 200 complex bondings to make up a simple living cell.
http://www.redskynews.com/books/imp-317.pdf
This means that life couldn't possibly have started on its own and there hasn't been enough time for macro evolution to take place either.
Hope that helps.
Carrier of The Word Of God
- Login to post comments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9gVf_yDDV4
There I prove common ancestory with chimps in under 2 minutes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKsMsz6dBac
chadagg does a pretty dam good job of showing our realationship to Neanderthals.
A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. ~ Albert Eins
Becoming Human
Well, the fact that I have a job is proof of evolution (molecular biologist studying RNA control systems and proteomics) but...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/proteomics_and_its_applications_for_evolutionary_mechanisms_indisputable_proof_of_evolution_and_...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/reading_the_common_descent_endogenous_retrovirals_and_mitochondrial_dna_a_very_short_page
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Researchers witness natural selection at work in dramatic comeback of male butterflies.
http://www.physorg.com/news103469691.html
Researchers discover evidence of very recent human adaptationhttp://www.physorg.com/news103381323.html
Swapping genes to change species.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/06/28/bacteria_hea.html?category=health
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
http://www.gatech.edu/innovations/origins/
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
A list of several popular creationist claims along with responses for each one.
"On mine honour, my friend, [...] there is nothing of all that whereof thou speakest: there is no devil and no hell. Thy soul will be dead even sooner than thy body; fear, therefore, nothing any more!"
- from Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra
I recommend
http://evolution.berkeley.edu
It explains everything very simply, and offers tons of empirical proof for evolution. Here is one of my blog posts that I believe proves evolution beyond any reasonable doubt:
http://gillslits.blogspot.com/2007/09/endogenous-retroviruses-prove-evolution.html
http://aigbusted.blogspot.com
Pulled this article from Natural History. It provides various examples of natural selection in action, including the Galapagos finches. There is also some discussion about speciation in sockeye salmon by way of reproductive isolation.
http://files.meetup.com/217965/Jonathan-Weiner.pdf
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
I have a huge list here:
http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2007/08/top-evolution-defense-sites.html
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
A is both wrong and irrelevant.
B is also wrong and irrelevant.
Links provided in this very topic conveniently refute both arguments before you even presented them, so that's all the effort this foolishness deserves.
Hope it helps.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
The first link only contains arguments against abiogenesis, not evolution.
Jesus, what is this, like the 1 quadrillionth time we've all heard this stupid probability argument?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
OK, sorry chaps. My links were a bit unkind and uncalled for.
I wish you all the best and I hope you wipe out the "Christian" hatred.
God Bless
Redsky
Carrier of The Word Of God
And we wish you the best at dragging yourself out of the primordial muck, ridding yourself of the need to make bullshit claims with a steaming pile of sarcasm as the side dish.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
At least he didn't talk about a banana proving god.
Or the fact that we don't find life growing in a new jar of peanut butter disproving abiogenesis.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
What you are actually asking about is not really evolution, but the origin of life.
It is much harder to prove, but there are a few good theories on it which are being worked on.
How about you work through all of those links up there to start with.
As for evolution itself: in the 150 years today since Origin of Species was published (the first proof) there has been constant research that supports it and none that disprove it.
I don't recall anyone in this thread making any hateful comments about Christians and you did not state that you were one, so calling us Christian haters is a bit uncalled for, although typical.
I don't hate Christians, I have friends and family who are Christians and I love them.
I do hate religion though.
Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.
Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51
agreed people seems to confuse abiogenesis with evolution
They also believe that if they could disprove evolution that it would automatically prove "Magic man done it".
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Well then I guess that proves that God can't exist since he would have had to start his existence on his own.
Hope that helps.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Sounds good enough to eat!!!
Got a question. As evolution on this planet is impossible, is it true that a super race of aliens somewhere else in the universe, evolved in a Darwinian manner and then created life and planted it here on earth like Richard Dawkins claims?
And is this what rational thinking is about?
Excuse me while I just pick myself up off the floor....
Carrier of The Word Of God
Citing Duane Gish doesn't make evolution impossible but thanks for playing.
Dawkins doesn't claim it . He brought it up as a example of "intelligent design" that makes more sense than creationism. Please remove your skull from Ben Stein's sphincter.
Why is that possibility less valid than your "My magic God done it"?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Evolution on this planet is not only possible, it is a totally observable, many times proven fact.
The people you are listening to purposefully misquote and twist what people say (such as Dawkins) to make ridicule of them. Think about that. That is the kind of team you are supporting.
There is no evidence against evolution, and if there was it would still not prove God. There is no evidence for God.
Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.
Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51
Evolution is inevitable, once life emerges with imperfect inheritance mechanisms, which allow it to change.
What was being argued was that that life itself could not emerge from non-living matter, ie, 'abiogenesis', NOT evolution, the standard confusion of creationism.
This ignores the FACT that recent discoveries continue to lower the bar for the spontaneous emergence of the precursors for life, ie it is only a matter of probabilities. The best any opponent of abiogenesis can 'rationally' claim is low probability on any given planet, not impossibility.
Which cannot be confidently said for the spontaneous emergence of an infinite, sentient creator critter.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I can name that tune in 1 note(showing my age here)
It is even LESS complicated than that. Darwin saw what any moron with eyes should see without their magical goggles on. Look at a domestic house cat and a tiger and lion. ONLY an idiot would try to claim that they were magically made on the same day and named by Adam.
I love it when theists try to pull science into it.
"Even if" is the backpeddle, then they quote some molecular issue, or atom issue, pretending or ignoring that BRAINS are material. And want us to forget that this is a distraction away from "Pay no attention to the fantastic claims"
Since that is the case and they accept that brains are material and THEY bring science into it, then they have to admit that they have no evidence for invisible non-material super brains.
So yea, talk about science. But when you bring it up don't pretend it justifies your pet invisible friend.
There never was an invisible magical super brain with super powers. Discussing unfalsifiable, unreplicatable, untestable claims is no different than claiming the earth is flat or that Thor makes lighting. It only proves that you have a claim.
I forgot which founder said this, "To talk of the immaterial is to talk of nothingness"
Claiming a god is a naked assertion.
Jefferson said, "Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them"
To understand how indistinguishable one's own pet deity is to another debate another theist. What should emerge is that the MOTIF is the same. "My magical invisible super brain with super powers will swoop down and save the chosen people(convienently that of the claimant).
So yea, bring science into it, we love it, because reason would dictate a falsifiable test beyond one's own claim.
The Christian using science will lead you to the bible which makes scientifically absurd claims the contradict reality. The Jew will quote science trying to lead you to their invisible magical super hero. And the Muslim will use science to lead you to Allah. What none of them have is a lab setting to test their pet gods and falsify them.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I cited Charles McCombs in the one document and Hubert Yockey is cited in the evolution is biologically impossible document.
I'm wondering if Ben Stein has British ancestory. He did a marvelous job of using understatement in that interview and even maintained his composure when things got extraterrestrial.
Sorry folks, but Richard Dawkins is all washed up here in the UK which is why he is now trying to make a few dollars inflicting his fictional works on you good people.
Carrier of The Word Of God
OK. The point I was trying to make is that because it is biologically impossible for life to start on it's own which the first document I referenced does prove, and because even if life could start on it's own then there hasn't been enough time for even the first protein to evolve which the second document I referenced does prove, then that derails the entire theory.
Carrier of The Word Of God
Would some of your mistaken views in other sciences be based on the geocentrism you espouse?
This thread kills me. I'm glad it's come back so I could have another belly laugh.
"Sorry folks, but Richard Dawkins is all washed up here in the UK which is why he is now trying to make a few dollars inflicting his fictional works on you good people."
Ridiculous.
"OK. The point I was trying to make is that because it is biologically impossible for life to start on it's own which the first document I referenced does prove"
It does not prove that, and it wouldn't matter even if it did. Evolution occurs no matter what life is or how it started.
"and because even if life could start on it's own then there hasn't been enough time for even the first protein to evolve which the second document I referenced does prove, then that derails the entire theory."
Flawed equations merely prove the author's ignorance, and that of those who reference him/her.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Er... no. Thanks for trying to speak for the rest of the country and everything but some of use have our own opinions. The only problem Dawkins has in the UK is dealing with the British attitude of "leaving well enough alone" that accompanies any statement he makes e.g. "what's the point? why can't you just leave it alone? it doesn't harm anyone!".
Many British people, myself included, may not particularly like his writing style when he's not discussing science. I thoroughly enjoyed The Selfish Gene and his other scientific works but found the God Delusion, while well reasoned and worthwhile, often repetitive and poorly argued in places. It is the text of the latter book that earned him the tag of "grouchy old man" in some corners. You only have to look at reviews of the Greatest Show on Earth to see that he's back on more positive ground in the UK.
Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss
The funny thing about this all is that whereas it is VERY scientifically valid indeed to question our current theories and try to arrive at better ones through brilliant intuitive thinking followed by rigorous research and testable predictions embedded in a hypothesis, this is not the agenda of the believers. They just want to burn the books, to smash centuries of meticulously collected field data and experimental laboratory results so that they can intimidate the human race with their sinister perversions of ultimate cosmic authority.
They are agents of tyranny and merchants of superstitious fear.
No sane person today will question the principle of evolution as being the most probable cause for why the universe appears to us as it does. And only a complete fucking moron will think that their own vague "feelings" about an issue are more valid than hundreds of years of scientific research by the best and the brightest minds that humanity has conjured up. No amount of pious living, religious chanting or enthusiastic submission to ridiculous superstitions will ever make you any more than the pathetic assholes that you are. Fuck you and all that you stand for and represent.
Not because you believe what you believe - which I will fiercely defend, to the point of my own detriment, because it is your right and privelege as a free man or woman in a free world - but because you are a fucking moron who is an even bigger moron for having the audacity to think that you are smart. You are not smart, you fool! You are not even very well informed. Not even informed enough to realize what a laughing stock you are to people who are basically too decent of character to smite you to the ground with a solid punch on your arrogant nose - which is what you deserve.
"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)
http://www.kinkspace.com
"This video has been removed by the user."
No one should need a youtube video for this... whenever a fundie brings up the "*THEORY* of evolution", just throw up the 97% matching dna comparison with humans, and that chimpanzees can recognize their own face in the mirror, when nearly all other animals CAN'T. Most can't even wrap their heads around those two facts, and the others tend to claim that scientists are ideologues/heavily biased towards political left/ partisan hacks/ write our history for us.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
appears so i dont know what these people are thinking
The first article about the impossibility of RNA/DNA forming in any plausible environment in early Earth has been specifically refuted by recent demonstrations of spontaneous formation of chains of RNA under conditions likely to have been present in places on the early earth.
Evolution of proteins with specific functionality is a matter of mutation and selection of the DNA. All forms of copying errors have been observed in DNA : deletion of 1 or more bases in a sequence, repeated copies of a single base or a short sequence, error in copying a base, swapping of whole sequences around on one strand or between strands.
And there is rarely just one specific peptide sequence for a protein which provide any specific functionality, which means there are several DNA sequences which could work.
No one in the science of evolution envisages that a new useful mutation appears magically in one stage. A gene may get duplicated, which allows at least one gene to genetically drift away from its original structure, allowing the possibility of going thru one or more intermediate stages where it actually generates some protein which is actually useful. Most attributes of an organism are affected by several genes, allowing different combinations of slightly different genes to maintain the function.
This all means that any simple computation of probability of any observed current state of a genome arising thru evolution is virtually impossible, because it is all but impossible to enumerate the probabilities of all the many possible paths by which it could have got to that state from some earlier state. We can't even assume that each step in the path must be an increase in 'complexity' or even functionality.
Neither article addressed the issues in anywhere near enough depth to be credible in their conclusions.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I assume you are referring to the work of Bada, Urey and Miller here. I personally believe that in 50 to 100 years, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey will be recognized as two of the greatest contributors to the understanding of our origins since Darwin himself. The "ice-catalysis" experiments conducted more recently by Jeffrey Bada only seem to confirm the original findings of the Miller-Urey experiments. In regard to your first article - It is written with very rudimentary understanding of the chemistry of bio-molecules, and asserts limitations in their reactivity without stating specific reaction conditions. I have a problem accepting that amino acids would "instantly react" with reducing sugars without knowing the precise conditions (substantiated with experimental evidence) under which each amino acid in consideration would do so. This is a huge assumption on it's own, and is jut one example of the appeal to lay-chemists made in the first article. Beyond this, evidence has been provided by Jeffrey Bada's research that early "primordial" mineral concentrations may have actually contributed to the stability of amino acids in solution.
It should be noted that evolution by natural selection cannot, by definition as a theory, ever be "proved." Scientific theories can only ever be substantiated beyond a doubt, but never proved - There is always an acknowledged possibility that evidence may arise to disprove it. Asking somebody to prove evolution, especially asking a scientist to do so, will only bring about a laugh. It is implicit to science that a theory be falsifiable - In fact, this is the problem that most scientists hold with creationism/design theories. They all rest on unfalsifiable explanations.
Furthermore, evolution as a natural occurrence is a fact. We know that evolution occurred on this planet - it would be incredibly ignorant/dense to deny this. The question we debate is how evolution occurred, not that it occurred.
Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.
-- Richard Dawkins
people and their magic