Science Disproves Evolution

[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...!

[psychocat]

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.

YouTube - Cat vs. Bear

[JakeMartinez]

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


Then swoop back to gouge out your eyes

Yay ravens.

[Chong Version 2.0]

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.

[Delta9 UK]

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

[Pahu78]

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]

[Pahu78]

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]

[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]

[IAmKowalski]

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.

[Pahu78]

This is just sad.

Why do facts make you sad?