Science Disproves Evolution

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 420_24/7

Even if every single thing you said in your post was proven true, which I really don't believe, this one line, I am absolutely sure, is not proven or even able to be proven.

---

Let me give it a try: When we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.

The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.

â??Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processesâ?� (From In the Beginning by Walt Brown, Ph.D. page 5). [http://www.creationscience.com/]

Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.

Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.

The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, â??Evidence that Demands a Verdictâ?� by Josh McDowell.

[From â??Reincarnation in the Bible?â?� http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/b...0-595-12387-2]

Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design? 2

It is illogical to maintain that similarities between different forms of life always imply a common ancestor (c); such similarities may imply a common designer and show efficient design. In fact, where similar structures are known to be controlled by different genes (d) or are developed from different parts of embryos (e), a common designer is a much more likely explanation than evolution.

c. â??By this we have also proved that a morphological similarity between organisms cannot be used as proof of a phylogenetic [evolutionary] relationship ... it is unscientific to maintain that the morphology may be used to prove relationships and evolution of the higher categories of units, ...â?� Nilsson, p. 1143.

â??But biologists have known for a hundred years that homologous [similar] structures are often not produced by similar developmental pathways. And they have known for thirty years that they are often not produced by similar genes, either. So there is no empirically demonstrated mechanism to establish that homologies are due to common ancestry rather than common design.â?� Jonathan Wells, â??Survival of the Fakest,â?� The American Spectator, December 2000/January 2001, p. 22.

d. Fix, pp. 189â??191.

Denton, pp. 142â??155.

â??Therefore, homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes, and homology of phenotypes does not imply similarity of genotypes. It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. ... But if it is true that through the genetic code, genes code for enzymes that synthesize proteins which are responsible (in a manner still unknown in embryology) for the differentiation of the various parts in their normal manner, what mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same â??patternsâ??, in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this question in 1938, and it has not been answered.â?� [Nor has it been answered today.] Gavin R. deBeer, formerly Professor of Embryology at the University of London and Director of the British Museum (Natural History), Homology, An Unsolved Problem (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 16.

e. â??Structures as obviously homologous as the alimentary canal in all vertebrates can be formed from the roof of the embryonic gut cavity (sharks), floor (lampreys, newts), roof and floor (frogs), or from the lower layer of the embryonic disc, the blastoderm, that floats on the top of heavily yolked eggs (reptiles, birds). It does not seem to matter where in the egg or the embryo the living substance out of which homologous organs are formed comes from. Therefore, correspondence between homologous structures cannot be pressed back to similarity of position of the cells of the embryo or the parts of the egg out of which these structures are ultimately differentiated.â?� Ibid., p. 13.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 17.   Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design? 

i always pegged the "supernatural" as simply nature that human kind has yet to explain with science.


and i believe that nature is unlimited, whereas science is vastly and tremendously limited.

The good thing about this thread is that I get to play devils advocate for both sides of the discussion. :D

Unfortunately it will have to wait as I have more pressing matters to attend to. :rastasmoke:

Quote:

---

1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

---

This is not logic! You've made a list of claims.

Where did you logically deduce that the universe had a beginning? Where did you logically deduce that "no universe" means "nothing?" What is "nothing?" Have you heard about dark matter?

Life may exist, but can you define what it is? Viruses, infectious and reproductive, can and do arise from abiotic material.

The stuff you've written here is utterly unprovable as it relies upon undefined terms to follow "logic," and most of the claims you've made obviously based on faith, not observation (ie the universe had a beginning, before the universe there was nothing, nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause). You're pushing religion here, not science.

He's just another Creationist copy-paster dumping text from a website with a shit load of made up information. Even his replies are copy pasted FFS.

Same crap here:
Atheist Nation Forums | Post reply

I doubt he will even be drawn into 'discussion' as that would involve understanding the material and running into scientists like me and we all know where that leads, rapidly downhill. This crap is only tolerated by a small bunch of Nimrods - the entire scientific community is otherwise oblivious or bemused. I for one find it frightening as these idiots seem to be gaining ground...

I'm still waiting to see how "Science Disproves Evolution" :wtf: - my guess is it will be a long wait...

Actually most of this points to a website trying to sell a book so - its actually SPAM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TurnyBright

This is not logic! You've made a list of claims.

Where did you logically deduce that the universe had a beginning? Where did you logically deduce that "no universe" means "nothing?" What is "nothing?" Have you heard about dark matter?

Life may exist, but can you define what it is? Viruses, infectious and reproductive, can and do arise from abiotic material.

The stuff you've written here is utterly unprovable as it relies upon undefined terms to follow "logic," and most of the claims you've made obviously based on faith, not observation (ie the universe had a beginning, before the universe there was nothing, nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause). You're pushing religion here, not science.

---

Faith is an alien concept to me and I agree 100% that all creationists are guilty of attempting to convince us of the "if you have faith" BS.

Supernatural is a vague word at best, it implies something that is superior to nature and therefore un-natural , I however am of the belief that "if it is possible then it must be natural". I don't believe it is possible for anything to exist that defies the laws of nature.

Well... i wont enter in more one endless discussion about creationism versus evolution... i think both may be right (and wrong) in some aspects. Like, creationism and evolution would be two opposite extremes of the real thing, and while both seems contradictory when one looks only at each one, i think the real thing is a blend of both, a thing between them.
Once i thought about one way to reconcile them... its only one way, among many other possible ones... anyway, anyone interested in it, look at:

http://boards.cannabis.com/spiritual...very-long.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

Faith is an alien concept to me

---

same here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

supernatural is a vague word at best, it implies something that is superior to nature, and therefore "unnatural", I however am of the belief that "if it is possible then it must be natural". I dont believe it is possible for anything to exist that defies the laws of nature

---

i agree whole heartedly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

Faith is an alien concept to me and I agree 100% that all creationists are guilty of attempting to convince us of the "if you have faith" BS.

Supernatural is a vague word at best, it implies something that is superior to nature and therefore un-natural , I however am of the belief that "if it is possible then it must be natural". I don't believe it is possible for anything to exist that defies the laws of nature.

---

I couldn't agree more.

The burden of proof is actually resting with the creationists on this one. Evolution has oodles of evidence from many different disciplines (biochemistry, paleoentomology, geology to name a few) but the Creationism / ID theory is even older than Darwin's theory of evolution and has nothing but its own lack of worth to blame for its failure.

Want to see proof of evolution? Just look at the little dog in those taco bell commercials. You do realize that's a wolf, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andruejaysin

Want to see proof of evolution? Just look at the little dog in those taco bell commercials. You do realize that's a wolf, right?

---

Wolf >>evo>lves>> Chihuahua ?? ew... poor wolves!!!

click me:

[attachment=o202501]

just a little something. ;) (intended to make you smile, in case, sadly, I need to clarify)

Vestigial Organs

Some structures in humans were once thought to have no function but to have been derived from functioning organs in claimed evolutionary ancestors (a). They were called vestigial organs. As medical knowledge has increased, at least some function has been discovered for all alleged vestigial organs (b). For example, the human appendix was once considered a useless remnant from our evolutionary past. The appendix seems to play a role in antibody production and protects part of the intestine from infections and tumor growths (c). Indeed, the absence of true vestigial organs implies evolution never happened.

a. â??The existence of functionless â??vestigial organsâ?? was presented by Darwin, and is often cited by current biology textbooks, as part of the evidence for evolution. ... An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures and an analysis of the nature of the argument, leads to the conclusion that â??vestigial organsâ?? provide no evidence for evolutionary theory.â?� S. R. Scadding, â??Do â??Vestigial Organsâ?? Provide Evidence for Evolution?â?� Evolutionary Theory, Vol. 5, No. 3, May 1981, p. 173.

b. Jerry Bergman and George Howe, â??Vestigial Organsâ?� Are Fully Functional (Terre Haute, Indiana: Creation Research Society Books, 1990).

c. â??The appendix is not generally credited with substantial function. However, current evidence tends to involve it in the immunologic mechanism.â?� Gordon McHardy, â??The Appendix,â?� Gastroenterology, Vol. 4, editor J. Edward Berk (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1985), p. 2609.

â??Thus, although scientists have long discounted the human appendix as a vestigial organ, a growing quantity of evidence indicates that the appendix does in fact have a significant function as a part of the bodyâ??s immune system.â?� N. Roberts, â??Does the Appendix Serve a Purpose in Any Animal?â?� Scientific American, Vol. 285, November 2001, p. 96.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 18. Vestigial Organs

Well... i think the problem with the evolution is that both sides are way too extremists. The ones who believes in evolution says that it was enough to create all the life in the Earth (or even in the universe), and the ones who disbelieves it says its complete BS.

There is a lot of experimental evidence that supports evolution, so discarding it is foolish. BUT, nothing, absolutely nothing ensures that evolution is the only and sole cause of the existence of life here in Earth. Evolution shows how live beings can evolve into complexer ones, but does not explain in a satisfatory manner how the simpler live beings (which evolved afterwards) appeared.

So, as everything else in this life, the middle way seems to be the best one. Dont discard evolution, but dont worship it also. Its a good theory, explains a lot, but it isnt the "Theory of Everything". (As nothing else is either).

i had my appendix removed... i tend to be pretty healthy, i almost never get sick...

how important could it... OW MY SPLEEN!!!


:D just kidding...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coelho

Well... i think the problem with the evolution is that both sides are way too extremists. The ones who believes in evolution says that it was enough to create all the life in the Earth (or even in the universe), and the ones who disbelieves it says its complete BS.

There is a lot of experimental evidence that supports evolution, so discarding it is foolish. BUT, nothing, absolutely nothing ensures that evolution is the only and sole cause of the existence of life here in Earth. Evolution shows how live beings can evolve into complexer ones, but does not explain in a satisfatory manner how the simpler live beings (which evolved afterwards) appeared.

So, as everything else in this life, the middle way seems to be the best one. Dont discard evolution, but dont worship it also. Its a good theory, explains a lot, but it isnt the "Theory of Everything". (As nothing else is either).

---

I am in agreement with you in this respect.

I'm not well read. I don't have facts to spew.

I don't believe in creation...it seems like lazy smoke and mirrors.
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9bk4_SRcwE[/YOUTUBE]

I understand evolution. it is tangible and familiar. But it is solely based on human understanding. Science is human discovery. While it has worked out pretty well for us so far...we should all be open to the idea that someone may have fucked up somewhere along the way, and that could skew everything we have ever known. the beginning of the universe, the dark matter...whatever your question is...the answer may be something unfathomable. I, for one, have other things to attend to and limitless universal mysteries are not on my to do list.

Both have huge gaps and seem like they will never be totally solved.

I will say that I like the way science carries itself. Doesn't feel the need to make a big deal out of this. It seems to be Creation that's always making a big fuss and trying to get noticed.

just 2 cents from an ignorant ol' bloke.
skeet.

MODERN SCIENCE AND CREATION

The ancient Greeks viewed science as a philosophical matter. Reason was the chief tool of science rather than experimentation. Much of this attitude came from their belief that the world was a corruption of perfection. The world was to them an uncreated, unknowable, yet necessary evil, which God directed but did not really control. Only when the theistic view of Creation took over did science begin to study the world experimentally. It was the thought that God had created matter that made it a thing worth studying. In this view, matter was real, good, and knowable. By seeing God the Creator in complete control, science could make the assumption that the universe made sense. Most of the scientists who formulated the studies of modern science were creationists. Without this basis, modem science would probably never have gotten started.

[From When Skeptics Ask by Geisler & Brooks]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

Disproving anothers theory does not prove your own.

---

Isint that the truth.

QUESTIONS ABOUT SCIENCE AND EVOLUTION

Two men were walking through the forest and happened across a glass ball lying on the carpet of twigs and fir needles. There were hardly any sounds other than the pair's own footsteps and certainly no signs of other people. But the very obvious inference from the evidence of the ball was that someone had put it there. Now one of these men was a scientist, trained in the modern view of origins, and the other a layman. The layman said, "What if the ball were larger, say ten feet around, would you still say that someone put it there?" Naturally, the scientist agreed that a larger ball would not affect his judgment. "Well, what if the ball were huge--a mile in diameter?" probed the layman. His friend responded that not only would someone have put it there, but that there should be an investigation to find out what caused the ball to be there. The layman then pursued one more question, ''What if the ball were as big as the whole universe? If little balls need causes, and bigger balls need causes, doesn't the biggest ball of all need a cause too?"

The Bible's views on the origins of the universe, first life, and new life forms, have caused many to falter in their acceptance of the Scriptures as truth. Modern science claims to have proven them wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. The theory of evolution is now posited as fact. Who is right, the Bible or science?

This problem will be dealt with by stating a basic argument, then applying that argument to the three areas of origins: the universe, first life, and new life forms. But before we embark, let's be sure that we understand what evolution is and how modern evolutionists view origins.

Most of us think of evolution as an invention of Charles Darwin in 1859, but it is really a very old view that has naturalistic philosophical roots. Non-theists say the universe is uncausedâ??it just always was and will be. All matter (if it exists in any sense) carries in it the principles of life. The idea of life arising from nonliving things is not a problem with this starting point. Indeed, it would be inevitable. Equally certain would be the progress from less complex life forms to more complex ones, since all things would be ever striving toward perfection and the realization of higher states.

Modern evolution does not look very much like this picture. Since many scientists are materialistic, they hold to the basic design but without the spiritual connotations. However, without the spiritual aspects guiding the system, there is no mechanism to explain the progress of species. Enter Charles Darwin. He provided a mechanism to make evolution work beginning with matter alone. He called it natural selection. Much of what Darwin taught has been rejected and surpassed by modern evolutionists, but the doctrine of natural selection has been maintained.

As to the origin of the universe, classic evolutionists have said that the world was uncaused. Carl Sagan has expressed this in his saying, ''The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be." [Carl Sagan, Cosmos (New York: Random House, 1980), p. 4] This view is still being taught by those who have not kept up with new discoveries in cosmology (study of the universe), Evolutionists also teach that life first began as a result of chemical reactions in what Darwin called a ''warm little pool." Research done in the last thirty years has shown that it is possible to generate some amino acids necessary for life using only a few basic gases, water, and an electrical charge. This has encouraged the view that life arose from nonliving matter. As to new life forms, these are said to have evolved through natural selection. As the conditions of the earth changed, animals adapted new characteristics to meet the new challenges. Those who adapted survived and those that did not passed into extinction. The great variety of extinct animals found in fossils and their similarities to living species are used to confirm this thesis. If virtually all scientists agree on these principles and have the evidence to prove it, can we still believe the Bible?

[From When Skeptics Ask by Geisler & Brooks]

we, the people, of all of reality are the created and the creator, be we human, insect, plant, animal, or mineral, we all contribute to the reality we live in.

we constantly change, we constantly grow, we constantly create, and we constantly die.

that is what evolution is, that is what god is, that is what creation is, that is what destruction is, that is LIFE...

THE BASIC ARGUMENT AGAINST EVOLUTION

Let it first be said that we need not argue on religious grounds. We do not need to simply stand firm crying, ''The Bible said it; I believe it; that settles it!" That attitude can be good, but there are good scientific grounds to reject evolution and believe in Creation. In fact, it is all based on the whole idea of what science is.

Science is based on causality; every event has a cause. Things don't happen willy-nilly. Even if we can't know specifically what particular cause produced a certain event, we can say what kind of cause it must have been because of the kinds of effects we see today. The idea that whatever caused some effect in the past will cause the same effect in the present is called the principle of uniformity. All science is based on finding causes using these two principles: causality and uniformity.

When scientific principles were first being developed into the scientific method, scientists like Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Issac Newton, and William Kelvin made a distinction between primary and secondary causes. A primary cause was a first cause that explained singularitiesâ??events that only happened once and had no natural explanation. Secondary causes were thought of as natural causes and laws that govern the way things normally operate. Unfortunately, some scientists began using supernatural causes to explain natural irregularities like earthquakes and meteors. When the truth was learned about these things, scientists eliminated primary causes from consideration altogether and sought to explain everything in terms of natural causes. But just as it was wrong for super-naturalists to explain ordinary events using primary causes, it is also wrong for the naturalist to explain all singularities by natural causes.

[From When Skeptics Ask by Geisler & Brooks]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pahu78

THE BASIC ARGUMENT AGAINST EVOLUTION

Oh, hang on - I don't have one. Let me copy paste some shite from a book instead.

---

This is getting VERY old.

I could pick it apart but, why bother - you are not actually interested having any sort of "discussion" are you Pahu? Just spamming the forum with junk.

You posted the exact same crap here
in fact you posted it a lot

I like this part best:

Two men were walking through the forest

...when they happened upon a large bear. One knelt to pray, the other
knelt and tightened his Nikes. "What are you doing?" cried the
other. "You can't outrun this bear!"

"I don't have to," said the other. "I only have to outrun you."

Natural selection FTW!

Lulz :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta9 UK

I like this part best:

Two men were walking through the forest

...when they happened upon a large bear. One knelt to pray, the other
knelt and tightened his Nikes. "What are you doing?" cried the
other. "You can't outrun this bear!"

"I don't have to," said the other. "I only have to outrun you."

Natural selection FTW!

Lulz :D

---

True natural selection would be what I would do in that situation...
I would boot him in the leg just to make sure I could outrun him. :D :thumbsup:

I am a natural survivor and predator. :cool:

This thread amazes me. It seems like each time I click on "New Posts", it's back.... coming up tomorrow: "Science Disproves Gravity".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 420_24/7

Even if every single thing you said in your post was proven true, which I really don't believe, this one line, I am absolutely sure, is not proven or even able to be proven.

---

"Only evil deals in Absolutes"-Some Jedi said this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psychocat

True natural selection would be what I would do in that situation...
I would boot him in the leg just to make sure I could outrun him. :D :thumbsup:

I am a natural survivor and predator. :cool:

---

Just be sure the other guy isnt me, cuz i'd bite back and feed you to the bear... oh, excuse me, i meant fight back... ;)



then again, i might actually try to befriend the bear and hunt you down with it's help. THAT'S FOR BOOTING ME IN THE LEG MOTHAFUKKA!

A bear and a wolf to deal with ..............
I'm kinda getting the feeling that I might just be toast. :wtf:

whaaat? you're jsut a house cat huh? just a psychotic house cat? you ought to be able to hold your own...!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stoner Shadow Wolf

whaaat? you're jsut a house cat huh? just a psychotic house cat? you ought to be able to hold your own...!

---

I'm hoping your bear mate is as brave as this one. :D

YouTube - Cat vs. Bear

A raven would just fly away in this situation...


Then swoop back to gouge out your eyes :)

Yay ravens.

It's simple! Godidit. Ignore the thousands of scientists and tons of evidence. They are tools of the DEVIL!!! /sarcasm

Who created God? Why did he create Satan? Why is God a "he"? What does he need a penis for? Why did he create sinners knowing that they will go to hell? Why did he create Earth? Was he bored all by his mighty self?

Why are our retinas backwards? Why can some people still move their ears? Why is 99.7% of our DNA identical to that of a chimp? Why is 65% of our DNA identical to that of a fruit fly? Why do we have appendixes? Why do we have remnants of a tail? Why can we artificially create amino acids in a lab with electricity?

Our planet has been around for 4.5 billion years. Can you comprehend that? There are about 10 billion stars in the average galaxy and there are about 10 billion galaxies that are observable. The universe is 14 billion years old. Do the math.:D

I do love this forum.

Where else could you see Cats chasing Bears?

If I had any weed I would roll one :jointsmile: just for you guys'n'gals

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OPERATION AND ORIGIN SCIENCE

Operation science deals with the way things normally operate. It examines how the world normally works in the present. It studies things that happen over and over again in a regular and repeated way. Operation science seeks answers that are testable by repeating the experiment over and over, and falsifiable if the cause does not always yield the same effect. Its conclusions should allow one to project what will happen in future experiments. Operation science likes things to be very regular and predictable. No changes; no surprises. So the idea of a supernatural being coming around to stir things up occasionally is strongly resisted. Because of this, it usually seeks out natural (secondary) causes for the events it studies.

Origin science is not just another name for giving evidence to support creationism. It is a different kind of science. Origin science studies past singularities, rather than present normalities. It looks at how things began, not how they work. It studies things that only happened once and, by their nature, don't happen again. It is a different type of study that requires a different approach. Rather than being an empirical science like physics or biology, it is more like a forensic science. Remember the TV show about a medical examiner named Quincy? Each week he tried to find out what and/or who caused a past singularity (a person's death) by examining the effect and deciding what kind of thing could have caused that event. That is what origin science seeks to do.

Now origin science works on different principles than operation science does. Since the past events that it studies cannot be repeated today, it uses analogies between the kinds of cause/effect relationships that we see today and the kind of effect that is being studied. Also, origin science does not claim to give definitive answers, but only plausible ones. We did not observe the events of origins, and we cannot repeat them (just as Quincy could not ask the murderer to kill the victim again). So the remaining evidence must be studied and interpretations of it measured by what seems most likely to explain the evidence. And just as operation science recognizes that some events demand an intelligent cause, origin science also admits an intelligent cause when the evidence calls for it.

The first step in the basic argument against evolution. is that It has taken the wrong approach. It has applied the principles of operation science to the study of origins. It is seeking regular and repeated causes for events that occurred only once. It has forced the operations that are presently working in the world to explain how the world got here in the first place. Using this method, it is a foregone conclusion that it originated by a process. Processes are what operation science studies. But it is confusion to assume that unique and singular events, such as the beginning of the universe or first life, should be studied in terms of a regular and repeated process. To understand origins, we must use origin science, not operation science.

[From When Skeptics Ask by Geisler & Brooks]

Because origin science is not restricted to secondary causes (the natural causes that operate the universe), it sometimes finds evidence to suggest an intelligent primary cause. On the TV show, Quincy had to determine whether he was looking for a natural cause of death or a murdererâ??an intelligent cause. What kind of evidence would show that an intelligent being has intervened? Carl Sagan has said that a single message from outer space would confirm his belief that there is extraterrestrial life. In other words, some normal events, such as communication, require an intelligent cause. This is a type of order known as specified complexity.

This is more than simply design or order. It is order of a complex nature that has a clear and specific function. A chunk of quartz has order in its crystals, but it is repetitive, like the message: FACE, FACE, FACE, FACE. A chain of random polymers (called a polypeptide) is complex, but it does not give any specific function or message. It looks like this: DLAKI CHNAOR NVKOEN. But specified complexity has order that is not repetitious and communicates a message or a clear function, such as: THIS SENTENCE CARRIES A MESSAGE.

Now one of these types of design is the work of intelligent intervention, and I think you know which one it is. It is obvious that wherever we see a clear and distinct messageâ??a complex design with a specified functionâ??it was caused by some form of intelligent intervention imposing limits on the natural matter that it would not take by itself. There are natural phenomena that are orderly and awe-inspiring, but clearly caused by natural forces. We can see that the Grand Canyon and Niagara Falls did not require intelligence but only the forces of wind and water to shape them. However, the same cannot be said for the faces on Mount Rushmore or a hydroelectric plant. In these there is clearly a specified message or function. For these we know there must have been intelligent intervention. Whether it be a sculpture, a name written in the sand, or a smoke signal we instantly recognize that it took some smarts to do thatâ??it just didn't happen by itself. And all of our present experience confirms this to us. It is universally true of things that we find in the world today, so it is reasonable to assume that it has always been that way.

[From When Skeptics Ask by Geisler & Brooks]

BASIC ARGUMENT STATED

Our basic argument has now made two points. First, it is valid science to look for intelligent primary causes to events that show signs of intelligence. Archeologists do it all the time. When they find pottery or arrowheads, they rightly conclude that some intelligent being produced it. Operation science is only concerned with secondary natural causes, but origin science is not so restricted and is the proper method for studying unique, past events. Second, present experience tells us that an intelligent cause should be sought wherever we find specified complexity. This gives us u criteria to show when an intelligent cause is operating and when it is not. So if it is valid for science to look for primary causes and we have some way of identifying them, the basic argument for Creation goes like this:

1. Origin science should be used to study origins.
A. There are two kinds of science: operation science and origin science; and we must use one or the other to study origins.
B. Operation science should not be used to study unique, unrepeatable past events because it is devoted to studying the normal operations of the present.
C. So, origin science is the proper method for studying origins because it studies unique, unrepeated events, which origins are by definition.

II. Origin science admits the possibility of primary intelligent causes.

III. Primary intelligent causes can be identified· when there is evidence of specified complexity

IV. Therefore, wherever there is evidence of specified complexity, origin science should posit a primary intelligent cause.

We may now apply this type of argument to the three areas of origins: the origin of the universe, the origin of first life, and the origin of new life forms.

[From When Skeptics Ask by Geisler & Brooks]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pahu78

BASIC ARGUMENT STATED

Our basic argument has now made two points. First, it is valid science to look for intelligent primary causes to events that show signs of intelligence. Archeologists do it all the time. When they find pottery or arrowheads, they rightly conclude that some intelligent being produced it. Operation science is only concerned with secondary natural causes, but origin science is not so restricted and is the proper method for studying unique, past events. Second, present experience tells us that an intelligent cause should be sought wherever we find specified complexity. This gives us u criteria to show when an intelligent cause is operating and when it is not. So if it is valid for science to look for primary causes and we have some way of identifying them, the basic argument for Creation goes like this:

1. Origin science should be used to study origins.
A. There are two kinds of science: operation science and origin science; and we must use one or the other to study origins.
B. Operation science should not be used to study unique, unrepeatable past events because it is devoted to studying the normal operations of the present.
C. So, origin science is the proper method for studying origins because it studies unique, unrepeated events, which origins are by definition.

II. Origin science admits the possibility of primary intelligent causes.

III. Primary intelligent causes can be identified· when there is evidence of specified complexity

IV. Therefore, wherever there is evidence of specified complexity, origin science should posit a primary intelligent cause.

We may now apply this type of argument to the three areas of origins: the origin of the universe, the origin of first life, and the origin of new life forms.

[From When Skeptics Ask by Geisler & Brooks]

---

This is just sad. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IAmKowalski

This is just sad. :(

---

Why do facts make you sad?