There Is Scientific Proof of a Creator. Evolution Can Be Disproved

edwardtheclean said:

i think God allows evolution. i also think that people talk what they do not believe. How could we even understand what is really how and when. we know how old the universe is, how old our planet is, that dinosaurs were here in the U.S. I still believe in a higher power even with that.

Click to expand...

edwardtheclean said:

as i figured, something u know nothing about that scares u, lift yourself up and take control, we are our own guides in life,

Click to expand...

Sure Shot said:

Let go of the filter, you call God. If he's there, you will find him in the science.


Take you own advice, from long ago.

Click to expand...

Filthy Phil said:

I dont really understand though how "proving" there was a creator actually in any way disproves evolution...and to speak of science, leading scientific advances in physics, mainly due to Hawkings recent publications, assert that we nor any of what we know was actually created. This does not mean though that there was no creator. Dont make jumps based off of logical inadequacies... there is inadequate evidence to disprove the theory of evolution. The existence of a creator is in itself insufficientl as "proof"

Click to expand...

Sure Shot said:

Found this in another thread and thought it deserved more coverage.

Click to expand...

Tym said:

Dude, there is no evidence here. Just a shit load of bald assertions, bad science and logical fallacies..
In your own words, without posting links to hour long I.D propaganda videos, tell me what evidence there is.

Posting links to videos that have all been thoroughly debunked many times by people far more reputable than those who made them, videos that have ZERO evidence or logic, Is not evidence of anything other than your own ignorance.

Do you know why ID was thrown out of court? Do you know why none of the claims made by any ID proponent have ever made it in to a peer reviewed journal?
Because they have no evidence, it is not science, and it attempts to corrupt valid scientific theories.

This thread is a failure.

Click to expand...

crackerboy said:

Your post was the failure. Why don't you, instead of criticizing, try to counter some of the claims that they have made? Let us all hear your argument against the scientific claims that they make. Why even bother posting if you don't have anything to offer on the subject?

Click to expand...

crackerboy said:

Your post was the failure. Why don't you, instead of criticizing, try to counter some of the claims that they have made? Let us all hear your argument against the scientific claims that they make. Why even bother posting if you don't have anything to offer on the subject?

Click to expand...

Heisenberg said:

I think his point was, people have done what your asking (refuting the points) over and over again. You seem to give credit to a few scientists while ignoring the overwhelming opinion of the entire scientific community. Why do you think those videos remain on the fringe of the news. Is it because of a conspiricy among scientists and educators? Or is it simply because creationism doesn't stand up to systematic scrutiny?

Click to expand...

mindphuk said:

Good question but unfortunately isn't actually part of the theory of evolution which only is an explanation of how life evolved, not how life started. Newton didn't need to know how the planets where formed to explain their motion. Chemists don't have to explain how the elements were formed to explain how they interact. Likewise, biologists don't have to know how life got here to explain how it diversified and not knowing doesn't damage evolutionary theory in the least.
Like I have said in prior discussions I don't refute all forms of evolution. I do refute that life formed spontaneously. I see this as a major flaw in evolution. If someone is to make a claim that all life formed through spontaneous evolution than they should have something to back that up don't you think. Other wise you are relying on faith. If you can not test the theory then you are relying on the same thing that you criticize Christians of doing. So yes this has everything to do with evolution. It has to do with the very beginning of evolution. This would be the foundation, the building blocks of life.
Now with that out of the way, I'll try to address abiogenesis. First of all, I think it would only be fair that you cite your source because those are not your words. Biomonomers? Specific mirror image? Are you referring to stereo isomers?
I use many sources but for the sake of these particular points you can refer to a book named origins by Ariel A. Roth. Chapter 4
Let's understand that a bacteria like E. coli is a very modern, well evolved organism, the cyanobacteria and Archaea would have been better choices as they are simpler but even they are more modern and complex than we suspect the first replicating organisms were. There probably is no modern equivalent as any protocell would have severe disadvantages to anything that evolved a cell wall and would be extinct. Add to that the problem that such replicators wouldn't have anything to fossilize and we will have difficulty showing exactly how life that formed us began. Let us also remember that failure in the laboratory is in no means evidence against abiogenesis because.
1. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I could make the same argument for God.
2. All we need is one replicator to form in just a few million years in a laboratory the size of Earth's oceans.
Yes but that ocean is full of other contaminants that can and will severely hinder the possibilities. We can't even accomplish this in very controlled environments. So how unlikely is it that it happened in total kayos.
It is easy to forget that in cosmologic and geologic time periods, even extremely unlikely events can happen on occasion, sometimes more than once. So let's throw out this canard of the bullshit statistics of 10 to the trillionth power or whatever. No one is claiming a fully functioning organism with a cell wall and complex internal structure formed spontaneously. Even then, I'd have to question his math because a 1 followed by 100 zeroes is already a number greater than the number of atoms in the entire universe.
This was a very detailed calculation based on well accepted thermodynamic and biological principles. It is a calculation on the statistical probability of whether such an event could take place. And when all the variables are entered it is shown mathematically to be nearly impossible to have happened without the help of an outside force.
Okay, back to the beginning of life. I keep saying replicator because the most likely explanation is that what became the basis for life probably looked and acted like nothing we would normally call life. Crystals reproduce in a way. They replicate their structure and take 'nourishment' from it's environment. The first "life" was probably a sequence of chemicals that used some sort of catalyst like a crystal, as scaffolding to help form replicas of itself. Even at that time, there could have been many combinations of chemicals that could replicate to some extent as millions of such experiments were probably occurring on the early Earth powered by geothermal energy or the sun. The evolution of DNA and cellular structure took a great deal of time, they did not just pop into existence. It appears that this had a chance to happen even much earlier than we thought as Mars had oceans of liquid water when Earth was still a molten rock after being hit by the protoplanet that formed our moon. The fact that we find rocks from Mars have hit Earth as meteorites makes the idea of panspermia credible. All of this of course is still very speculative and we may never have a complete answer but that doesn't make it more likely that life popped into existence spontaneously because some super-being spoke a few words.
No but the lack of facts and evidence makes creation just as viable.
One last fact about chirality. It is true that proteins are made up of L amino acids and we don't know a process that produces only L form and not D forms, but we have found extraterrestrial sources of amino acids in asteroids and they too seem to favor the L form. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/11/031104064412.htm This again demonstrates that just because we haven't been able to provide an explanation for something doesn't make it unexplainable.

Click to expand...

crackerboy said:

Show me one point, one post that counters anything. Where is your argument? The only person that has attempted to counter my argument as usual is mindphuk. Every one else just does the exact same crap you are doing. Nothing! More mindless babble and insults. MAKE AN ARGUMENT!!

Click to expand...

Heisenberg said:

I haven't insulted you once, and I have made points. When mindphuk so eloquently articulates the crux of the issues, I feel little need to jump in. Especially since I am not educated about evolution, as he obviously is. The points I have made, about mistakes of logic, evidence, and the scientific method, you seem to gloss over. That's fine since they are minor points, but you do the same thing to everyone's post. For example, continuing to speak as if evolution attempts to explain the origin of life.
I never said you insulted me, I said that you have not made an argument and that all you keep doing is insulting the scientists. You say that there are mistakes with the logic, evidence, and scientific method, but these are all just generalizations. Can you tell me where these mistakes where made. What particular statement or claim did anyone make that you feel where flawed. Give me specific examples. If you can't do that then you have not made any points at all. You are simply attempting to use mindphuk's claims as your own. If you do not understand enough about evolution as you said, then how can you make the judgment about the evidence that was put forth. So you see, it is you that is making mistakes with your logic.

Whereas mindphuk can explain succinctly why that is wrong, I can point out that it is a strawman argument. You are inventing a position for the other side, in this case the claim that all life formed spontaneously, and then proving it invalid. In the end, that doesn't help prove anything because evolution doesn't make any claims about how life began. It is a waist of time. Is this just a trivial point? Perhaps, but knowing and recognizing strawman arguments will help you greatly when trying to find the truth, or trying to have a relevant debate.

Click to expand...

crackerboy said:

I am not inventing any positions. This is the position of many evolutionists. There is more than just Darwin. You can not argue the fact that evolution has failed to put forth a viable explanation for how life originated. Evolution as a whole relies on the concept that life evolved naturally. So If you are to make that claim than you should also provide some mechanism to support such a claim. Without such a mechanism you are relying on the same faith that I am. Only I do have some scientific evidence that spontaneous evolution is statistically impossible. At least I have a mathematical formula as my evidence. What do you have?

Click to expand...

Heisenberg said:

The overwhelming majority of evolutionairy scientists do not make any claims as to how life began. There are proposed explinations, but those are outside the theory of evolution. If you are speaking of an evolutionary theory which includes claims of how life came into existence, then you are speaking of a theory which is not held by science. You would be in essence trying to disprove an unaccepted explanation in favor of another unaccepted explanation.

Click to expand...

crackerboy said:

Way to not give any specific examples of mistakes in logic, evidence, or anything else. I thought you said that you did not understand enough about evolution to make any such claims. And yes the whole idea of evolution is that life evolved naturally. So if you or anyone wants to make that claim then how did the first organisms evolve? As stated before my problem with evolution is this issue. I fully believe that when subject to environmental changes life will adapt. But that does not mean that all life came from one amoeba that crawled out of the ocean. Evolutionists try to stand on scientific principles but those same principles poke some major holes in it.

Click to expand...

And yes the whole idea of evolution is that life evolved naturally.

Click to expand...

So if you or anyone wants to make that claim then how did the first organisms evolve?

Click to expand...

crackerboy said:

Way to not give any specific examples of mistakes in logic, evidence, or anything else. I thought you said that you did not understand enough about evolution to make any such claims. And yes the whole idea of evolution is that life evolved naturally. So if you or anyone wants to make that claim then how did the first organisms evolve? As stated before my problem with evolution is this issue. I fully believe that when subject to environmental changes life will adapt. But that does not mean that all life came from one amoeba that crawled out of the ocean. Evolutionists try to stand on scientific principles but those same principles poke some major holes in it.

Click to expand...

mindphuk said:

The point that we have been making that is even if life did pop into existence spontaneously by a creator, it STILL does not make the claims of evolutionary theory invalid. Not knowing how life came into existence doesn't change what we see in nature about how life diversified once it existed.
Why aren't you just as critical of chemistry because they don't explain where the elements come from? Why aren't you critical of atomic theory because they don't explain where the atoms came from? Why aren't you critical of germ theory because they don't explain where bacteria and viruses come from? Each one of those theories rely on a different branch of science to explain those things. Stellar cosmology explains where the heavier elements come from but I would venture to say that many chemists don't care about that.

Like I said, for the sake of argument, I will accept your premise that life was created by a supernatural being. Now with that out of the way, explain how the findings of common ancestry, that all life came from some original basal forms of life, is discredited.

Click to expand...

crackerboy said:

The reason I am not trying to refute any of the other sciences is because none of them are making claims about the origins of man. (A subject that I have interest in) That simple. When people make claims that evolution disproves God than I want to investigate. And during those investigations I have come across what I see as major flaws.
As for your question, you know that is a very loaded question. First of all I do not see any evidence of any kind of transition from the phyla class. The tree of life is full of major missing links or transition species. Evolutionists attempt to make some very significant jumps in these gaps without any explanation.

Click to expand...