Creation vs Evolution

Part1:
New Definition of Science?
Issue Date: November/December 2005

By Thomas Heinze
*snip*

Science is the search for natural solutions." Creation by an intelligent Designer is a supernatural rather than a natural solution. By this contrived definition, to be "scientific," you have to be an atheist.

Debunked: Evolution's materialism or naturalism denies a role for God

*excerpt*
2. This claim applies not only to evolution; it logically should apply to people who believe in materialism or methodological naturalism in any science or any aspect of life. All people who believe that God does not intervene to keep planets rotating, cause winds, or make sodas fizz, according to this claim, must be atheists. It is obvious that they are not. Many famous scientists were and are devout Christians who use, in their work, exactly the same sort of naturalism that evolutionary science uses.

Other related Creationist claims DEBUNKED:
Evolution is atheistic

Naturalistic science will miss a supernatural explanation

The Rushmore heads only show design on the carved surface. The real heads show incredible design all the way down to the atoms.

Debunked: Design is detectable

*excerpt*
5. Life is nasty. If life is designed, then death, disease, and decay also must be designed since they are integral parts of life. This is a standard problem of apologetics. Of course, many designed things are also nasty (think of certain weapons), but if the designer is supposed to have moral standards, then it is added support against the design hypothesis.

Other related Creationist claims DEBUNKED:
The methodology of science rules out even considering design

Evolutionists have blinded themselves to seeing design

Moreover, the cell's machines are made of some of the most complex and difficult to produce chemicals in the world, such as protein

and RNA. These materials never occur in nature except when made by living cells. Yet, evolutionists claim that lucky accidents brought the parts together and assembled them.

Debunked: First cells could not come together by chance

*excerpt*
2. Nobody knows what the most primitive cells looked like. All the cells around today are the product of billions of years of evolution. The earliest self-replicator was likely very much simpler than anything alive today; self-replicating molecules need not be all that complex (Lee et al. 1996), and protein-building systems can also be simple (Ball 2001; Tamura and Schimmel 2001).

Other related Creationist claims DEBUNKED:
Not all amino acids needed for life have been formed experimentally

Part 2
In the Beginning...Soup?

©2003 by Thomas F. Heinze
Reproduced by permission

Chapter 1
Did God Create Life? Ask a Protein
*snip*

Amino acids, however, will not "link together" to form proteins! Living cells are the only places in nature where proteins are made because they contain the [B]information (found in a DNA sequence) to put amino acids in the right order for each individual protein, and have tiny machines that link them together.
[/B]

Debunked: DNA needs proteins to form; proteins need DNA. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB015.html

*excerpt*
1. DNA could have evolved gradually from a simpler replicator; RNA is a likely candidate, since it can catalyze its own duplication (Jeffares et al. 1998; Leipe et al. 1999; Poole et al. 1998). The RNA itself could have had simpler precursors, such as peptide nucleic acids (Böhler et al. 1995). A deoxyribozyme can both catalyze its own replication and function to cleave RNA -- all without any protein enzymes (Levy and Ellington 2003).

The evidence that life never comes from non-living materials is so abundant that it is a basic principle of science, called the Principle of Biogenesis. (Living things come only from living things.)

Debunked: Pasteur proved life only comes from life (law of biogenesis). http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB000.html

*excerpt*
1.The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.

Amino acids come in two kinds: Half are called left-handed and half right-handed. Only left-handed amino acids will work in living things. Proteins which contain any right-handed amino acids have the wrong shape and will not connect properly to the proteins around them.

Debunked: Life uses only left-handed amino acids. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB040.html

*excerpt*
5. Some bacteria use right-handed amino acids, too (McCarthy et al. 1998).

Other related Creationist claims DEBUNKED:
Evolution is baseless without a theory of abiogenesis. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB090.html

Part 3
*snip*

"Perhaps RNA was the first self-replicating information-storage molecule. After it had formed, it could also have catalyzed the

assembly of the first proteins…."5

Before you get too enthused over the marvelous powers of "perhaps RNA," remember that years of research have not been able to
make RNA form, nor does RNA catalyze the assembly of proteins.

Debunked earlier: First cells could not come together by chance. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_2.html

*excerpt*
3.This claim is an example of the argument from incredulity. Nobody denies that the origin of life is an extremely difficult problem. That it has not been solved, though, does not mean it is impossible . In fact, there has been much work in this area, leading to several possible origins for life on earth:

Argument of incredulity is another term for God of the Gaps.

Other related Creationist claims DEBUNKED:
Problems with evolution are evidence for creation. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA510_1.html

Teaching kids that life started without a Creator produces atheists. Doubts grow and faith in God is undermined.

Debunked earlier: Evolution is atheistic. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA602.html

*excerpt*
More than 10,000 clergy have signed a statement saying, in part, "We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests." (Clergy Letter Project 2005)

Originally posted by Templares
...

Hot air. 😉

Part 4

and

In the Beginning...Soup?

©2003 by Thomas F. Heinze
Reproduced by permission

Chapter 2

A Cell Needs a Membrane
*snip*

Just scroll up for all protein-related debunkings.

A lipid membrane without its protein pumps and channels would let water enter the cell, but would keep nutrients out, starving the cell,4 so proteins had to work together with the lipids from the first. This is evidence of carefully planned irreducible complexity.

Debunked: Protein transport within a cell is irreducibly complex. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_3.html

*excerpt*
Many of the proteins involved in transport in eukaryote cells have molecular "ancestors" in bacteria. These molecules, the ABC transporters, serve in a much simpler system. If Behe (the hack who come up with irreducible complexity) is interested in the simplest system that accomplishes a function, why does he not even mention them?

Other related Creationist claims DEBUNKED:
Even the simplest life is incredibly complex. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010_1.html

Irreducible complexity indicates design. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI102.html

Part5

In the Beginning...Soup?

©2003 by Thomas F. Heinze
Reproduced by permission

Chapter 3

Where Did the Information in Cells Come from?
*snip*

The information in DNA is real information. It has been copied onto computers in the Human Genome Project, and printed out on paper. It is the same information no matter what it is written on.

Debunked: How could information, such as in DNA, assemble itself? http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF003.html

*excerpt*
2. Information is not meaning and does not, per se, imply any special structure or function. Any arrangement implies information; the information is how the arrangement is described. If a new arrangement occurs, whether spontaneously or from the outside, new information is assembled in the process. Even if the arrangement consists of shattering a glass into tiny pieces, that means assembling new information.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Hot air. 😉

Part 6

In the Beginning...Soup?

©2003 by Thomas F. Heinze
Reproduced by permission

Chapter 4

Redefining Science to Eliminate the Creator
*snip*

If you see four bricks stacked one on top of another you know someone stacked them that way; how much more the complex design of a chip? However, in cases where the designer would have to have been God, we are told not to reason like we do for everything else, but to believe that cells had no designer at all.

Debunked earlier: Design is detectable. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI100.html

*excerpt*
3. In most cases, the inference of design is made because people cannot envision an alternative. This is simply the argument from incredulity. Historically, supernatural design has been attributed to lots of things that we now know form naturally, such as lightning, rainbows, and seasons.

The Laws of Probability that calculate the chance of a thing happening.

*excerpt*
3. The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.
4. The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.

The Principle of Biogenesis (life only comes from life).

*excerpt*
The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.

Cause and effect.

Debunked: There must have been a first cause. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI200.html

*excerpt*
3. This claim raises the question of what caused God. If, as some claim, God does not need a cause, then by the same reasoning, neither does the universe.

The general tendency of things to become disordered described by the entropy of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Debunked: The second law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

*excerpt*
1. The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because:

the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of

energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.

entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).

even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system. In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.

The observation of what happens in nature.

The experimental evidence.

In other words, Intelligent design is science.

Debunked:Intelligent design has explanatory power. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI002.html

*excerpt*
1. Merely accounting for facts does not make a theory scientific. Saying "it's magic" can account for any fact anywhere but is as far from science as you can get. A theory has explanatory power if facts can be deduced from it. No facts have ever been deduced from ID theory. The theory is equivalent to saying, "it's magic."

Other related Creationist claims DEBUNKED:
Intelligent design theory is scientific. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001.html
Creationism has explanatory power. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH001.html

Part 7

In the Beginning...Soup?
©2003 by Thomas F. Heinze
Reproduced by permission

Chapter 5

Did Time Perform the Miracle of Life?
*snip*

Time only increases the chance of things coming about that can come about. But

Debunked earlier: The odds of life forming are incredibly small. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html

*excerpt*
2. The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.

The famous astronomer and mathematician Sir Fred Hoyle once did a mathematical analysis and concluded: "The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 naughts after it…. It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution."

Debunked: Quote mining. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113.html

*excerpt*
2. Creationists use quotes as appeals to authority. They apparently see the printed word as a weighty authority. In science, though, the ultimate authority is the evidence itself, so that is what writers refer to. Quotes cannot substitute for evidence.

The long time required to travel through space to earth.
The lack of anything to breathe on the way.
The destructive effects of cosmic rays.
The extreme cold of space.
The heat of friction upon entering the atmosphere, and the shock of striking earth.

Putting the spontaneous beginning of life somewhere off in space only adds difficulty to the already impossible.

IIRC this is partially included in "First cells could not come together by chance" debunking. Anyway here is proof that "complex chemicals" exist in the harsh outer space. http://pokey.arc.nasa.gov/~astrochm/LifeImplications.html

Other related Creationist claims DEBUNKED:
SETI researchers expect that they can detect design. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI190.html

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Hot air.

Originally posted by Templares
Sure, sure lets punch holes (2 big ones) on that pdf link of yours from reclaimamerica.org:

1. It CHERRY PICKS quotes from reputable scientist to make it appear that the theory of evolution is losing its support in the scientific community and certain facts relevant to the debate.

Isn't that what you are doing Templares? Are you the pot calling the kettle blaaaack? 😉

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Hot air. 😉

Hey you gotta give me credit for taking the time to actually answer your posts. It took me some time to *cut and paste* all that sh!t up . . . .

.

.

.

.

.

Ok so maybe i dont deserve any credit 😂. Anyway the credit should go to Mr. Mark Isaak and all the intellectual badboys at Talkorigins.org.

Here is their handy-dandy COMPLETE LIST of debunkings.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Isn't that what you are doing Templares? Are you the pot calling the kettle blaaaack? [/color] 😉

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Isn't that what you are doing Templares? Are you the pot calling the kettle blaaaack? [/color] 😉

Originally posted by Templares
Hey you gotta give me credit for taking the time to actually answer your posts. It took me some time to *cut and paste* all that sh!t up . . . .

.

.

.

.

.

Ok so maybe i dont deserve any credit 😂. Anyway the credit should go to Mr. Mark Isaak and all the intellectual badboys at Talkorigins.org.

Here is their handy-dandy COMPLETE LIST of debunkings.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Originally posted by Templares
Hey you gotta give me credit for taking the time to actually answer your posts. It took me some time to *cut and paste* all that sh!t up . . . .

.

.

.

.

.

Ok so maybe i dont deserve any credit 😂. Anyway the credit should go to Mr. Mark Isaak and all the intellectual badboys at Talkorigins.org.

Here is their handy-dandy COMPLETE LIST of debunkings.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

No I appreciate your effort Templares. Good job. But you haven't proved anything. You cherry picked just as you accused the others at the website I furnished of doing.

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
Are you going to say anything about all the information he just posted? Anything convincing?

I just did. But you still have not answered my questions.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
No I appreciate your effort Templares. Good job. But you haven't proved anything. You cherry picked just as you accused the others at the website I furnished of doing.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I just did. But you still have not answered my questions.

This is what i mean when i say cherrypicking in my previous post

Overhyping a particular quote (tornado in a junkyard) to make it seem that this particular quoted scientist supports ID (like the one found in reclaimamerica.org):

Sir Fred Hoyle, wrote, “The chance that higher life forms
might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.”

While at the same time conveniently forgetting his real stance on the subject matter:

"The creationist is a sham religious person who, curiously, has no true sense of religion. In the language of religion, it is the facts we observe in the world around us that must be seen to constitute the words of God. Documents, whether the Bible, Qur'an or those writings that held such force for Velikovsky, are only the words of men. To prefer the words of men to those of God is what one can mean by blasphemy. This, we think, is the instinctive point of view of most scientists who, curiously again, have a deeper understanding of the real nature of religion than have the many who delude themselves into a frenzied belief in the words, often the meaningless words, of men. Indeed, the lesser the meaning, the greater the frenzy, in something like inverse proportion."
--Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Our Place in the Cosmos (1993), p.14

Originally posted by Templares
This is what i mean when i say cherrypicking in my previous post

Overhyping a particular quote (tornado in a junkyard) to make it seem that this particular quoted scientist supports ID (like the one found in reclaimamerica.org):

Sir Fred Hoyle, wrote, “The chance that higher life forms
might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.”

While at the same time conveniently forgetting his real stance on the subject matter:

"[B]The creationist is a sham religious person who, curiously, has no true sense of religion. In the language of religion, it is the facts we observe in the world around us that must be seen to constitute the words of God. Documents, whether the Bible, Qur'an or those writings that held such force for Velikovsky, are only the words of men. To prefer the words of men to those of God is what one can mean by blasphemy. This, we think, is the instinctive point of view of most scientists who, curiously again, have a deeper understanding of the real nature of religion than have the many who delude themselves into a frenzied belief in the words, often the meaningless words, of men. Indeed, the lesser the meaning, the greater the frenzy, in something like inverse proportion."
--Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Our Place in the Cosmos (1993), p.14 [/B]

Got it.

But try reading my posts without a bias next time. I know that this is nearly impossible. We all have a degree of bias.

http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/1016.asp

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Got it.

But try reading my posts without a bias next time. I know that this is nearly impossible. We all have a degree of bias.

Huh? Your reclaimamerica.org source gives a FALSE IMPRESSION of what Fred Hoyle's really stands on the subject. They are MISLEADING. F*ck do you know that is arguably the leading proponent of Panspermia, one of the theories explaining Abiogenesis, "life from non living things" which is CONTRARY to what ID and creationism stands for.

Reclaimamerica.org and similar creationist websited make it seem that Hoyle is an ID proponent.