Well creationism offers very little in the way of explanatory power for the diversity of life on the planet and relies largely on "God done it for reasons". Young Earth Creationism is entirely precluded by numerous lines of evidence.
As for Evolution, is it mathematically impossible? How so?
@Pikachu The amount of time it would take for random mutations to produce life as we know it supposedly exceeds the lifespan of the universe. However, new evidence suggests mutations are nonrandom, so it's kind of becoming a moot point.
@Pikachu One of the strongest direct evidences for creation is the existence of innumerable highly complex systems in the universe composed of components occurring in a pattern of order rather than disorder. Highly ordered systems could not arise by chance since random processes generate disorder rather than order, simplicity rather than complexity. For example if you have ten cards numbered one thru ten laid out on the table it would be extremely unlikely that they would fall in order of one thru ten.1 in 3,628,800 would be the odds. Obviously the probability decreases rapidly as the number of components increase. If you increase the number to 100 components the probability would be 1 followed by 158 zeros. Therefore making it completely impossible by chance. The age of universe is estimated to be 30 billion years and considering the infinitesimal particles in the universe can participate in a thousand billion different events every second, impossiblely high of course, then the greatest number of events that could ever happen is astronomical making the probability absolute zero. At least in our known universe.100 components has a zero probability. It could never happen by chance. Every single living cell is infinitely more complex and ordered than this, it is impossible that even the simplest form of life could ever have originated by chance. There is a complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record and complete absence of evidence for observable progressive evolution. There is no clear evidence that their descendants were better adapted than their predecessors. It is clear beyond any rational argument that chance processes could never have produced even the simplest forms of life in the first place. Without a living God to create life, the laws of probability and complexity prove beyond doubt that life could never come into existence at all.
So the first error creationists often make is the first one you have made here which is supposing that the process is random. It is not. Anything but. The raw materials of the process we call mutations are random (...kind of although not really) but the process which funnels mutations into adaptive traits is selective, highly selective.
For example if you have ten cards
Gonna have to shut that analogy down right there because the sequence in which cards are dealt has no selective pressure. There's nothing that might make subsequently dealt hands have any greater or lesser likelihood of getting that sequence. A far better analogy is that you want to roll a six on 1,000 dice...but you don't have to roll 1,000 sixes in one go. You roll, keep the sixes...roll, keep the sixes...and so on.
The second obvious mistake in this argument is taking the end result as we see it now and calculating how likely that result is to have arisen as if that was somehow the target instead of just one variation amongst infinite variations that became fixed. Do you understand? Let's bring it back to your cards: It's very unlikely to get that one through ten order....but that's just an arbitrary outcome. It's not more valuable or even less likely than any other order of those cards. The only reason you look at it and say "Ah hah! So amazing!" is because you're beginning from the end point and gasping at how unlikely that specific event is.
There is a complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record
Objectively wrong. The human evolutionary record alone is enough to prove you wrong there. Whale evolution is super well understood. Hell, even dinosaur to bird evolution.
Pick any or all of those you think you can make an argument for that there is no evidence of transitional fossils. I think you're going to find yourself in an uphill battle because there just IS a lot of evidence there.
There is no clear evidence that their descendants were better adapted than their predecessors
See, this one baffles me because even the creationist accepts that organisms can adapt to their environment over generations so i'm really not sure what you think you're saying here.
@Pikachu Lol son. Get out of my wheelhouse! Sounds like you’re confused, at least not sure, kind of, When the evidence from probability is used, evolutionist often dismiss the evidence as irrelevant using the clever and confusing argument that no arrangement is more or less probable than any other arrangement consequently some arrangement must exist. They say the unordered arrangement has the same probability as the ordered one and is meaningless. Superficially this arrangement may seem logical even though we immediately sense something is wrong. We know intuitively as well as experimentally that ordered arrangements are much less probable than unordered arrangements. Random arrangements of boulders in nature are natural whereas the same boulders arranged in a circle would require explanation. Closer consideration, of course, does quickly reveal that such evolutionary reasoning is suspicious. To disagree is gratuitous and naive to say the least, when all real experience indicates the exact opposite. That is it is far easier to generate something disordered and useless than something organized and functioning. You cannot simply pull a working system out of a hat full of random particles. The system must be organized before it can do anything constructive. Patterns do not appear spontaneously. They are not inevitable as the evolutionary argument implies. They are extremely rare. You’re talking about the process and then you talk about mutations being adaptive ?? We’re not on the same page here. I’m talking about the universe, you’re talking about cells mutating, which isn’t accurate. Also it makes no difference at all if you reference cards or dice it’s still mathematically impossible any way you look at it. Not only for one specific pattern but any kind of pattern. Who’s keeping the sixes and rolling again and again until they finally get enough to form earth with just the very beginning of life? God? The universe isn’t near old enough yet. Now whenever one sees any kind of real ordered complexity in nature particularly as found in living systems, one can be sure this complexity was designed. One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written. Evolutionists use this practice of postulating pre biological natural selection to avoid facing the conclusion that the probability of a self replicating state is zero, when for practical purposes the concept of infinite time and matter has to be invoked , that concept of probability is annulled. Now what chance can’t accomplish evolutionists glibly attribute to natural selection. Natural selection as a process is okay, we’re pretty sure it goes on in nature although good examples are surprisingly rare. This is a typical example of the way evolutionists bypass even the strongest evidences for design. They candidly acknowledge the complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record and the complete absence of evidence for observable progressives evolution. Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, geologists of today actually find a highly uneven record. Species appear suddenly in the record , show little or no change during their existence in the record, then suddenly go out of the record. Their descendants show no significant biological improvement. In spite of the utter lack of evidence, in either living populations or the fossil record that natural selection ever generates higher levels of complexity the mere existence of optimal structures is taken by evolutionists as conformation of the remarkable power of natural selection. But of course such a process as natural selection doesn’t even exist at the pre biological level. What ever effect selection may possibly have had on random processes in later biological reproduction, as I said before, it is clear beyond any rational argument that chance processes could never have produced even the simplest forms of life in the first place. Without a living God to create life the laws of probability and complexity prove beyond doubt that life could never come into existence at all. So the errors and the obvious mistakes made by evolutionists have been shut down by their own arrogance and ignorance of the obvious truth and facts that they cannot deny so they arbitrarily attempt to manipulate the truth to justify their own narrative.
lol before i fully read and respond to this i want you to be honest: With God as your witness, did you generate that with AI? Because woof😅 That was a mess
I just don't want to waste my time talking to chatgpt, fair?
@Pikachu Perty please with sugar on top. Is that what you want? I don’t care if you want to respond or not I already know you’re just gonna use evolutionist propaganda to dismiss everything. Go ahead and try. I’ll just dismiss your claims with facts.
Perty please with sugar on top. Is that what you want?
You got it, kiddo. But do please try to make your own arguments this time instead of cheating. At least fail on your own merit.
Ok!
We know intuitively as well as experimentally that ordered arrangements are much less probable than unordered arrangements. Random arrangements of boulders in nature are natural whereas the same boulders arranged in a circle would require explanation
We know also that ordered arrangements appear in nature without a mind directing them like crystals and snowflakes or even ecosystems. The point about the boulders is a point against creationism. Why? Because as with all creationist analogies in this area it seeks to demonstrate that nature is designed by...contrasting design with nature! 😆. Make that make sense.
You cannot simply pull a working system out of a hat full of random particles
Correct. But you can get components of a system. It's only when you look at the completed system that you suppose it cannot have arisen without direction. This is just the irreducible complexity argument which has used examples ranging from the eye to a bacterial flagellum....but every single time it has been demonstrated that the system is not in fact irreducibly complex and offers functionality at various stages of development.
I’m talking about the universe, you’re talking about cells mutating
Um...did the Ai forget what your original question was? You asked about evolution....so yeah, i'm talking about adaptive traits and mutations lol
They candidly acknowledge the complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record and the complete absence of evidence for observable progressives evolution
lol my dude, i'm trying so hard to pretend this is not AI but come ON: That's literally the opposite of white i said in my last response.
The mere existence of optimal structures is taken by evolutionists as conformation of the remarkable power of natural selection
If you think evolutionary scientists believe there are "optimal structures" in nature and organisms then you don't understand evolution. The LACK of "optimal structures" that we observe in nature is indeed one of the evidences that organisms were not designed..at least not by any rational, competent engineer lol
I can see why you want to steer more toward the origin of the universe and natural laws because the fact is that however life began, the evidence is unequivocal that it has since evolved. And we can get into that.
Care to go toe to toe on dinosaur to bird evolution?
@Pikachu Again, why must you repost my comments? Does it make you feel superior? Ok Mr google for brains. Snow flakes, really. Just as the wind carves beautiful patterns in the sand in the desert, so also snow flakes. There was an outdoor table the top looked like one giant snow flake beautifully formed over the entire table top snow was 5 or 6 inches thick. The wind was responsible. I wonder why? God! Wind doesn’t blow boulders into a pattern. You can do better than that. About the eye. Every single time what?? has been demonstrated? Evolutionists agree the eye could have been formed by natural selection seems absurd in the highest possible degree. They go on to say that if gradual evolution of the eye could be shown to be possible, the difficulty in believing that could hardly be considered real. They then proceed to roughly, without any proof, as there is no fossil evidence of ancient eyes, assume a likely course for evolution using examples of more complex eyes of various species like the octopus, of course the octopus. All assumptions no way to prove it! Different species have different eye complexities because God gave them the eyes a particular species needs, the eagle, the hawk, the octopus, or the human. Every single time they can only assume what they want to believe with no proof whatsoever. Bacteria? Again it could have, assumption! Now you don’t believe there are optimal structures in evolution?? Look who doesn’t understand evolution!! Man you need to do some research and get a better idea of what you’re talking about. Ok now the chicken, just blam that’s where it came from. It’s quite a bit more complicated than that to figure out. Again assumptions have been made but nice try. What about which was first the chicken or the egg?
I find it makes it more clear to what i am responding and it helps me organize my thoughts. You prefer ai-generated walls of text, i prefer doing it this way. Deal with it.
The wind was responsible. I wonder why? God!
Nah, that's just something you claim but can't demonstrate. And you failed to address the defeater for your argument: Every time the creationist seeks to show nature is designed they do so by contrasting nature with something known to be designed.
About the eye. Every single time what?? has been demonstrated?
Oh do try to keep up. The eye was brought up with reference to the concept of irreducible complexity. That concept has been demonstrated to be false in every example. The eye in particular has been shown to have functionality at every stage because we have living organisms with versions of an eye at every stage. Google Dawkins eye evolution and you can watch a video demonstrating the concept.
Evolutionists agree the eye could have been formed by natural selection seems absurd in the highest possible degree. They go on to say that if gradual evolution of the eye could be shown to be possible, the difficulty in believing that could hardly be considered real
....i think what you were trying to say there was that evolutionists agree that it's absurd that the eye could evolve and therefore if it could be shown to be possible...they wouldn't find it absurd? lmao woof, that was rough going. It's also a lie. Evolutionary biologists do not agree that the eye could not have evolved step-wise. Quite the contrary.
Now you don’t believe there are optimal structures in evolution??
Nope. Your eyeball has a blind spot because the optic nerve runs straight through the retina. That's not optimal. The Giraffe has a 5 meter long recurrent laryngeal nerve. That's not optimal. The human back is prone to injury in ways that other great apes are not because it's basically a quadruped spine stood up. That's not optimal. You see what i'm saying here? Evolution doesn't produce optimal structures, it produces "good enough" because the only thing that evolution is "concerned" with is making sure you live long enough to pass on your genes and that your kids do the same. Additionally, evolution will take an existing structure and modify it, while a designer (or at least an intelligent one) would just make a new optimal structure.
Congratulations: You learned something today! 😃👍
Ok now the chicken, just blam that’s where it came from. It’s quite a bit more complicated than that to figure out
lol no shit, sherlock. Of course the evolutionary pathway between dinosaurs and birds is more complicated than that. What it also is, is well understood and documented in the fossil record. There's a clear progression of more ancient animals that look fully dinosaur, later animals that start to have bird-like qualities and last of all, full birds. And wouldn't you know it: the transitional forms in the middle get hard to tell apart for sure, to the point that creationists (who deny that birds evolved from dinosaurs) can't agree on if a given animal is actually a bird or actually a dinosaur. A mosaic of features is exactly what evolution predicts and exactly what creationists struggle to explain.
Aaaaanyway. This has been fun but frankly you're not putting in enough effort to hold my attention so i'ma dip out. Feel free to do some research into these things! Facts over feelings! Data over dogma!
@Pikachu What’s the mater son? Thought you said this would be fun?? Ok I get it I guess. You need to repost mine giving yourself a reference so you don’t get lost. Makes sense. You want to look like you know what you’re talking about I guess so you insist this AI thing going on. lol nothing could be further from the truth. It’s backfiring miserably. Something I claim but can’t demonstrate?? What? My examples of the desert sand and the giant snow sculpture on the table top, which is identical to a snow flake are inarguable evidence. Do you need a picture? An eye at every stage. Really, please reread my statement about the eye. Obviously each individual eye from sea creatures to man has different eyes. You can’t conjure these differences with evolution just because there’s no fossil evidence. No sir! That dog won’t hunt. Again if you do your research correctly and carefully you will understand that your claim can only be under the assumptions of evolutionists. Not proven as you are so fondly insistent upon. Not so good of a job with your googling skills here. Dinosaurs and birds are not well understood because the only fossil record that was considered the missing link wasn’t discovered until fairly recently and now very recently there apparently are a few more. None of which can prove anything of the kind. Only assumptions. No more than living animals of today which is all you have to go on concerning the eye. In fact these so called missing links have been proven to have no genetic link whatsoever from dinosaurs to birds. Strange indeed. No comment on which was first the chicken or the egg?
