Atheism is a religion

[KichigaiNeko]

So this is how "Totally deceived" gets his education is science? Do ALL creationists work this way ?


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=-31.700277,115.797713

[Undeceived]

Let me endeavor to explain what evolution really is—what scientists don’t tell you:

Evolution hinges on mutations’ ability to increase genetic info—on the tendency for the smallest gases to evolve into other elements, become living things, and work together in complex organisms that accidentally become more complex. But not only has increasing genetic info never been observed, tested or demonstrated, its logic is questionable at best. To assume complexity should increase when all we’ve seen is destruction, entropy decreasing, and extinction is to ignore the evidence. ‘Hypothetically’ is not a science. Understanding this, you, the atheist, bypass evolution’s driving points and focus instead on the physical evidence: dating. Dating is based on assumption and therefore not reliable. If you assume the earth is old, you date with K-Ar and get billions of years; if you assume the earth is young, you date life forms with C-14 and get 6,000-10,000 years. Both are supported. Then you point to the fossil record. Well, without dating you have nothing but “it seems to me” arguments, observing strictly their looks and hypothesizing correlations. Scientist: "The whale pectoral fin and human hand look alike, so they must be related." ‘Hypothesizing’ is not objective science either. When a creationist points out the missing transitional fossils you inevitably reply, “We’re lucky to get the fossils we have now.” But holding onto a theory until you see a contradiction is exactly the fallacious thinking science is not supposed to operate by. No decisive evidence exists, yet evolution remains prominent as long as there are not multitudes of discrepancies. Lack of evidence should inspire action—one must be skeptic before accepting, not after. One should not believe a theory in spite of deficient evidence. If one wishes to be objective, one should wait until the evidence is filled. A true scientist should entertain all possible alternatives including, yes, young earth theory, which is also supported by dating. To assume, it is said, is to make an ass out of science—you can pin whatever you like on it.

Yet science must operate by a number of assumptions. First, that God does not exist. If we cannot see, touch or hear Him this assumption must be made--even though it is directly within God's nature not to be seen, touch or heard. Second, since God does not exist, a theory for how the universe came to be without Him must be made. This is built on the first assumption, rendering it unreliable. Finally, using the assumption of evolution, scientists endeavor to prove evolution with dating. Since evolution requires many many years (concluded by our inability to witness it in the last 500 years), scientists take on the assumption that the earth must be old. Consequently, they date with a technique designed for older dates. Since evolution is assumed before dating, dating cannot be used to support evolution or it would be a circular argument. Therefore a fossil tree with dates has no evidence at all. Without proper dating, you cannot put one organism definitively before another.

Let’s dig into the tendency of mutations. By definition, they are errors in copying genetic code. Mistakes most often bring disorder. They are easily 99.99% harmful or neutral, as evidenced by scientists' continued failure to introduce beneficial ones in labs. The possibility of receiving a helpful mutation is there, but the chance of the same organisms being wiped out by a harmful mutation is much greater. An analogy: Say you won a million dollar lottery. You then stake all your winnings as well as your life savings on one game of blackjack. The odds are always in favor of the house, so chances are you'll lose everything. You may survive the gamble, but probability says the next dozen lottery winners attempting the same feat won't be so lucky. Multiply this by billions of years, and time is not your friend. Time is evolution's enemy. Evolution is based on mutations’ ability to increase complexity, which has not been proven or even witnessed. If the core element of a theory has no backing, your theory is subjective. Therefore evolution does not abide by the scientific method, as much as you would like it to.

I described earlier how difficult gradual evolution can be. The giraffe was my example. A giraffe neck has to receive a mutation to elongate at the exact same moment the mutations to absorb the blood pressure (the “wonder net”), for a stronger heart, and to make thicker blood vessels arrive. And this has to happen dozens if not hundreds of times as the neck gradually becomes longer. You cannot have one without the others or the creature dies. Evolutionists like Dawkins explain this by saying mutated genes could stay dormant until the cooperating genes come along. But the clear rebuttal to this is theory is the fact that we see no dormant genes today. Look at a genetic code for any living organism, and there are no hundreds or thousands of dormant mutated genes waiting in the wings. Not only that, if one accidentally emerged, natural selection would extinguish it immediately. Why keep around a useless organ for millions of years until its accessories evolve to make it useful? Once again, scientists ignore logic in hopes of there being additional evidence for them further down the line.
By increasing complexity, I mean never-existing-before genetic info. Scientists have tested on mice, but all they get is old info--an extra eye, bent up arm, misplaced ear. What evolution needs is who new tissues. One mutation is not enough. You need a series of improbably beneficial mutations that build on one another (dormant mutations which should not stick around) in order to get a new tissue. Otherwise, you may get a leg out of the forehead, but that’s on old leg you already had the genetic information for—not new, more complex information. The only alternative to the clear backward trend is for every single mutation to have a function, in turn, that keeps benefiting organisms alive while all other organisms die. That’s a leap of faith. To say every one of the hundred mutations helped an organism survive along the path of ninety cataclysmic disasters borders on sheer fantasy. When we see a species go extinct, it goes extinct—no straggling members with just the right mutation for the event. And once again, there are no fossils to document this. There are no eyes even close to the human eye. Several pieces inside the eye are completely dependent on one another, and there is no reason to suspect they once had been otherwise. The arrival of new tissues is vital to evolution, yet we have no documented accounts of it happening. Take the transition from fish to land animal. To develop lungs, the organism would need information it would not have. It's like growing an iron bar off my arm. There may be iron in my system, but that doesn't mean it can arrange into a functional organ. Some scientists get around this by suggesting organisms can pick up pieces of their surroundings, like leaves or feces. But let's be real. Where is a fish going to get lung tissue and have the random mutation at the exact right moment for it to become part of their DNA so they can pass it on? If you jabbed an iron bar in my arm, how likely is it that it will fuse to my body and my daughter will have the very same chunk of metal when she's born? Evidence is not in favor of evolution. In fact, logical interpretation of the evidence is against it. Yet scientists believe anyway. Why? Because they don’t want accountability, meaning, or a God in the universe. In an article titled "Confession of a Professed Atheist," Aldous Huxley wrote:

I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption... For myself, as no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneous liberation from a certain political and economic system, and liberation from a certain system of morality.

Conclusion: There are a lot of strong theories in science, but evolution isn’t one of them.
Please don't respond unless you have scientific refutations for my claims.

I'll try to be brief since I know that you won't even try to understand most of this.

1. Increase in information has been observed and we have found transitional fossils. We were lucky to find as many as we did, but t hey have been found. What's more, these things have been pointed out to you before and still you continue to ignore them. That makes you a liar.

2. Hypothesizing is the first step of the scientific method.

3. Young earth is not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

4. Science does not discard anything that cannot be seen, touch or heard. Dark matter cannot be and still it is a crucial part of cosmology.

5. Mutations are changes in copying genetic code, not errors. Your definition is wrong. Further, most of the mutations are neutral, not harmful. And no, a harmful mutation need not cause the creature to automatically die out either. If that was true, no harmful mutation would be passed on to progeny, which it is.

1. Show me proof. Where has increase in information been observed? And what transitional fossils are there you are sure are transitional fossils, and not just extinct organisms with similarities to two living organisms?

2. Yes, but if you did only the first step of long division would you call it mathematics? Maybe you would, but that would hardly qualify as useful.

3. http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evi..._earth.htm

4. And that shows science's bias. 95% of the matter needed for the Big Bang to have happened does not exist to our senses today. Since the absent matter is so vital to evolution, scientists come up with 'Dark Matter' to explain it. Why are they so willing to take leaps of faith for atheism but not theism?

5. Calling them 'change' is only putting a subjective interpretation on the process. DNA is supposed to be copied the same every time. When it's not, that's the organism's failure to pass clean, tested information on to its offspring. If the organism intended to copy the information perfectly and it instead came out imperfect that is an error. If I meant to type "mutation" and made the typo "muttation" would you call that an error or a change?
I agree most mutations are neutral, but there are still more harmful than beneficial ones. You make the assumption that a harmfully-mutated organism would not reproduce. I say most would. Let's suppose there are 1000 neutral and 100 harmful mutations per every 1 beneficial mutation. Ten of the harmfully-mutated organisms die immediately. The other ninety have disease-carrying mutations or cataracts or cholesterol problems that don't have immediate effects or impact the organism's ability to find a mate. Those ninety pass their traits and their offspring die out within a couple generations. 90-1 odds and that species is going extinct faster than it can form. Whatever the real numbers, you can be sure more fatal mutations survive than beneficial ones. Look at mice experiments in which they are subjected to radiation. More than any other mutation, they receive a weakness to cancer. But the cancer susceptibility does not kill them immediately. It passes on. If scientists cannot create a positive mutation tendency in a lab, what makes you think organisms will have it in real environments?

[Epimethean]

I missed this batshit YEC. Convinced of christ, therefore no science is clearly his MO.

[Whateverist]

I'll try to be brief since I know that you won't even try to understand most of this.

1. Increase in information has been observed and we have found transitional fossils. We were lucky to find as many as we did, but t hey have been found. What's more, these things have been pointed out to you before and still you continue to ignore them. That makes you a liar.

2. Hypothesizing is the first step of the scientific method.

3. Young earth is not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

4. Science does not discard anything that cannot be seen, touch or heard. Dark matter cannot be and still it is a crucial part of cosmology.

5. Mutations are changes in copying genetic code, not errors. Your definition is wrong. Further, most of the mutations are neutral, not harmful. And no, a harmful mutation need not cause the creature to automatically die out either. If that was true, no harmful mutation would be passed on to progeny, which it is.

1. Show me proof.

2. .. that would hardly qualify as useful.

3. [url]http://www.garbage.org/[email protected][/url]

4. And that shows science's bias ..

5. .. only putting a subjective interpretation on the process.

You make the assumption that ..

I wonder if they give these guys scripts with blanks for formatting their posts on atheist sites?

[Cosmic Ape]

I'll try to be brief since I know that you won't even try to understand most of this.

1. Increase in information has been observed and we have found transitional fossils. We were lucky to find as many as we did, but t hey have been found. What's more, these things have been pointed out to you before and still you continue to ignore them. That makes you a liar.

2. Hypothesizing is the first step of the scientific method.

3. Young earth is not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

4. Science does not discard anything that cannot be seen, touch or heard. Dark matter cannot be and still it is a crucial part of cosmology.

5. Mutations are changes in copying genetic code, not errors. Your definition is wrong. Further, most of the mutations are neutral, not harmful. And no, a harmful mutation need not cause the creature to automatically die out either. If that was true, no harmful mutation would be passed on to progeny, which it is.

1. Show me proof.

2. .. that would hardly qualify as useful.

3. [url]http://www.garbage.org/[email protected][/url]

4. And that shows science's bias ..

5. .. only putting a subjective interpretation on the process.

You make the assumption that ..

I wonder if they give these guys scripts with blanks for formatting their posts on atheist sites?

Haaa, Or some kind of Religious Cheat Sheet or an Anti-Atheist Teachers Guide to refuting contradictions and offering psuedo intellectual arguments...Basically what aplogetics do.

[leo-rcc]

1. Show me proof. Where has increase in information been observed?

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/8/931.full.pdf

If that is not what you mean by information, please define information better.

And what transitional fossils are there you are sure are transitional fossils, and not just extinct organisms with similarities to two living organisms?

All of them are transitional fossils, all organisms evolve all the time. But the process is such that you need to take huge steps to see that change takes place as it is all on such a gradual level that one cannot see the changes overnight.

2. Yes, but if you did only the first step of long division would you call it mathematics? Maybe you would, but that would hardly qualify as useful.

If your long division doesn't need to be finished at a certain time (there is no goal) who cares if only the first step is carried out now? A gradual change over time doesn't need to be useful, any change can be useless as long as the change is not detrimental to the organism. All it takes are miniscule changes that develop over time, in their own time, as they happen.

4. And that shows science's bias. 95% of the matter needed for the Big Bang to have happened does not exist to our senses today. Since the absent matter is so vital to evolution, scientists come up with 'Dark Matter' to explain it. Why are they so willing to take leaps of faith for atheism but not theism?

Are you arguing evolution or cosmology? Please pick a topic and stay with it.

5. If I meant to type "mutation" and made the typo "muttation" would you call that an error or a change?

In language it is an error. A chemical reaction is neither correct or an error, just different. If the change works than great, if it doesn't and is neutral, no problem, if it is detrimental it will seize to function.

I agree most mutations are neutral, but there are still more harmful than beneficial ones. You make the assumption that a harmfully-mutated organism would not reproduce. I say most would. Let's suppose there are 1000 neutral and 100 harmful mutations per every 1 beneficial mutation. Ten of the harmfully-mutated organisms die immediately. The other ninety have disease-carrying mutations or cataracts or cholesterol problems that don't have immediate effects or impact the organism's ability to find a mate. Those ninety pass their traits and their offspring die out within a couple generations. 90-1 odds and that species is going extinct faster than it can form. Whatever the real numbers, you can be sure more fatal mutations survive than beneficial ones. Look at mice experiments in which they are subjected to radiation. More than any other mutation, they receive a weakness to cancer. But the cancer susceptibility does not kill them immediately. It passes on. If scientists cannot create a positive mutation tendency in a lab, what makes you think organisms will have it in real environments?

Interesting point, but why would that matter? We already know that 99% of all species will die out, and some will survive, this is not a problem for evolution. Just because the odds of a new species evolving is very small doesn't make it impossible or even improbable. It just takes a lot of time and slight variations.

[genkaus]

1. Show me proof. Where has increase in information been observed?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html.

Look it up.

And what transitional fossils are there you are sure are transitional fossils, and not just extinct organisms with similarities to two living organisms?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

2. Yes, but if you did only the first step of long division would you call it mathematics? Maybe you would, but that would hardly qualify as useful.

Its useful because if you don't take the first step, you cannot go any further.

3. http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evi..._earth.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE001.html

Follow the list to see every claim refuted.

4. And that shows science's bias. 95% of the matter needed for the Big Bang to have happened does not exist to our senses today. Since the absent matter is so vital to evolution, scientists come up with 'Dark Matter' to explain it. Why are they so willing to take leaps of faith for atheism but not theism?

First, dark matter is a matter for cosmology, not evolution. Its existence or non-existence does not reflect on evolution being true or false. It is not related to evolution at all, much less vital to it.

Second, it has been observed.

5. Calling them 'change' is only putting a subjective interpretation on the process.

No, you idiot. Change means something is not as it was before. No subjective interpretation is required. If it is not the same as before, it has changed.

DNA is supposed to be copied the same every time. When it's not, that's the organism's failure to pass clean, tested information on to its offspring. If the organism intended to copy the information perfectly and it instead came out imperfect that is an error. If I meant to type "mutation" and made the typo "muttation" would you call that an error or a change?

Except, DNA is not "supposed" in any particular way. To say that something is "supposed" to act in a certain way, presupposes an intention behind it, i.e. there is a certain way it should act in light of a certain purpose. Evolution is not a conscious process capable of forming a purpose.

Like you said, it is an error only if you "intended" to write
"mutation" and it came out "muttation". If there was no consciousness no form such an intention, then it is simply a change, not an error.

But, even given your premise of intention, how do you know that DNA is not supposed to copy the information almost as it is, but with some random changes? How do you gauge that that is not the intention?

I agree most mutations are neutral, but there are still more harmful than beneficial ones. You make the assumption that a harmfully-mutated organism would not reproduce. I say most would.

No, I don't. Because I don't think that all harmful mutations are life-threatening.

Let's suppose there are 1000 neutral and 100 harmful mutations per every 1 beneficial mutation. Ten of the harmfully-mutated organisms die immediately. The other ninety have disease-carrying mutations or cataracts or cholesterol problems that don't have immediate effects or impact the organism's ability to find a mate. Those ninety pass their traits and their offspring die out within a couple generations. 90-1 odds and that species is going extinct faster than it can form. Whatever the real numbers, you can be sure more fatal mutations survive than beneficial ones. Look at mice experiments in which they are subjected to radiation. More than any other mutation, they receive a weakness to cancer. But the cancer susceptibility does not kill them immediately. It passes on. If scientists cannot create a positive mutation tendency in a lab, what makes you think organisms will have it in real environments?

And where did you get those ridiculous ratios? And why do you assume that the neutral mutations would remain neutral forever? Even harmful mutations can prove to be beneficial.

For example, CCR5 Delta 32 mutation was a mostly neutral mutation that is now beneficial.

For another, single sickle-cell gene mutation which would noramally eb consdered harmful, but is beneficial in malaria-ridden areas.

For a third, OAC2 gene mutation is also mostly benign with benefit provided only in specific cases.

[Undeceived]

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/8/931.full.pdf

If that is not what you mean by information, please define information better.

This is the classic "gene-duplication" demonstration evolutionists refer to. But creating a duplicate is not new information. For macroevolution to occur, you first need this duplicate, then you need that duplicate to mutate. I'm still looking for proof of that duplicate mutating into a new tissue, and it doing so in trending fashion-- as opposed to one shot in the dark.

All of them are transitional fossils, all organisms evolve all the time. But the process is such that you need to take huge steps to see that change takes place as it is all on such a gradual level that one cannot see the changes overnight.

You don't know they are transitional fossils. Your only reason is the presumption that evolution is true and that the fossils look similar or have similar genetic codes. Of course two paws look alike-- they serve similar functions. Of course two cat types have similar genetic codes-- they're cats. Finding a fossil that is similar to a cat and, say, a wolf, does not mean it is a transition or common ancestor. It means they are alike genetically. Being alike genetically does not lead to the conclusion that they evolved, unless you have a prior wish for them to have.

If your long division doesn't need to be finished at a certain time (there is no goal) who cares if only the first step is carried out now? A gradual change over time doesn't need to be useful, any change can be useless as long as the change is not detrimental to the organism. All it takes are miniscule changes that develop over time, in their own time, as they happen.

Who cares? Well, if all I needed was a hypothesis to have science, I could hypothesize about mice being on the moon because the moon looks like cheese. You can hypothesize about anything, but that doesn't make it true or even very supported.

Are you arguing evolution or cosmology? Please pick a topic and stay with it.

I was drawing a link between the two. Evolution is scientists' explanation for the origin of life without God. You need the Big Bang (scientists' explanation for the origin of matter without God) before you have evolution. And you need 95% more matter than we see today in order for the Big Bang to be logical.

In language it is an error. A chemical reaction is neither correct or an error, just different. If the change works than great, if it doesn't and is neutral, no problem, if it is detrimental it will seize to function.

I'll repeat, DNA is supposed to be copied the same every time. When it's not, that's the organism's failure to pass clean, tested information on to its offspring. If the organism intended to copy the information perfectly and it instead came out imperfect... that is an error. If the intended affect of the spark-plugs was to start a car, and it instead starts a fire, is that an error or change? If the intention/goal/purpose is not fulfilled, a mistake has been made. By all demonstrations, DNA is designed/evolved to copy the same every time. Don't try and tell me gene mutations are different from everything else in the universe. If you want to make that claim, it's purely subjective. When you call something a change as opposed to a mistake, you are making the assumption that there is no intended purpose in the universe. It's true that evolution says there is no purpose, but you can't use evolution's conclusion to prove evolution-- that's a circular argument.

Interesting point, but why would that matter? We already know that 99% of all species will die out, and some will survive, this is not a problem for evolution. Just because the odds of a new species evolving is very small doesn't make it impossible or even improbable. It just takes a lot of time and slight variations.

At some point in history, species were multiplying in number. Evolution says life started with one (or a couple) and now the earth has millions of species. It's up to science to prove this tendency for procreation and diversity, when today all we see are species going extinct and converging.

[Epimethean]

" I could hypothesize about mice being on the moon because the moon looks like cheese."

You may as well. Nothing you have rendered so far has any bearing on fact or reality unless we count the view in the funhouse mirror as truth. More apologist ratshit.

[The Grand Nudger]

Meh, why on earth anyone would argue about the creation of information is beyond me. I like how you've backpedaled yourself into this particular corner. You do realize that this information is not just "created"...correct? The genetic information carried within a surviving population is a record of pressure applied by the environment, as such this "information" is being written by the myriad interactions of the world around us and is expressed (in populations of living creatures) as the total available genetic information pool of any given population of life. There is no spontaneous creation in science.

What you've done with this single argument is created a magical strawman that is not an accurate representation of fact, nor does it have any bearing whatsoever on the issue you are arguing against. Instead, it is a deliberate misinterpretation crafted to suit an agenda that could honestly not care less about science. Stop sourcing your science from apologists.