I'll carry on with the posts about Darwin and mental illness shortly, but as a brief interlude I just wanted to share another discussion I've been having with a fanatical evolutionist, over on Quora. This man was very upset that I mentioned God in one of my responses, and took me to task for being so 'naive' and plain dumb.
This is how things played out. BTW, this isn't finished yet. My guess is that the fanatical evolutionist will now resort to name-calling and general personal attacks, as that's what usually happens when you show these people they're talking rubbish.
FANATICAL EVOLUTIONIST (FE):
It is your opinion that there is a God, there is no proof of such thing.
Thanks for your opinion of my opinion. There is currently far more scientific proof that God exists than that the theory of evolution is valid in any way, shape or form.
If you have proof that the theory of evolution is definitely right, and that God doesn’t exist, I’d love to see it.
That is undeniably false, you can not show me any proof that there is a God. God is a three letter word made up by man to deal with life’s absurdity and questions of why we're here. Are you denying evolution?
Yes, completely. Evolution is 9 letter word made up by people who want an excuse to take God out of the picture, and to pretend that life is utterly meaningless. There is no scientific evidence to support macro evolution - I’ve been having this debate with other people on Quora for weeks already, and no-one can come up with any evidence.
So please, make my day and prove me (and about a million other scientists…) wrong about evolution.
Rivka, there is much more proof for evolution than there ever will be for a god. Are you this naive or totally brainwashed by religion?
You are proving the point that the people who spout off about evolution have NO evidence to back it up. If you have the evidence, please, stick the links up here for everyone else to enlighten themselves too.
8 Scientific Discoveries That Prove Evolution is Real
I can't believe I'm stopping this low and really arguing this.
The post you sent me contains 8 opinions and no real science.
Point 1: It claims DNA ‘proves’ evolution.
If you pick up a copy of: Signature in the cell: DNA and the evidence for intelligent life, written by Professor Stephen Meyer, PHD, he reviews many origin of life theories, specifically relating to DNA and RNA.
Someone else summed the problem with this claim very neatly (please note - what follows is fact not opinion. Please let me know what SCIENCE you have challenging the mathematic probabality of evolution being zero):
Meyer dissects each of these theories, the end result for nearly all of these ideas is that they are based on certain amounts of specified information existing as a premise for the subsequent parts of the theory to function, in other words they do not explain or solve the problem of where biological information comes from, but simply displace the problem.
Meyer goes on to give a very detailed (and extremely interesting) probability analysis regarding the possibility for even one functioning protein to come into existence simply by chance at 10/164, to put that number in some kind of perspective, there are only 10/65 atoms in the known universe.
Meyer further explains how at least two hundred different kinds of proteins are necessary for the simplest cell to exist, which would then put the probability of one cell existing by chance at 10/41,000, this is an order of magnitude more than the probabilistic resources of the entire universe. He then quotes recent work by James Brook and Gordon Shaw regarding geological and geochemical evidence for the prebiotic atmospheric conditions being friendly or not, for the production of amino acids and other essential building blocks of life. Their work is conclusive, there is no evidence in metamorphosed Precambrian sedimentary rocks that such conditions as envisioned by evolutionist ever existed. This puts the probability for evolutionary theory providing a credible explanation regarding the origin of life at exactly zero.
Point 2: Transitional fossils
This post gives one example of a transitional fossil - a reptile with turtle-type features (and isn’t that backwards, by the way? I thought amphibians came first according to your theory?) Here’s what the scientists say:
“It is not even possible to make a caricature of evolution out of paleobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that the lack of transitional series cannot be explained by the scarcity of the material.The deficiencies are real, they are never going to be filled.” - Professor N. Heribert-Nilsson of Lund University, Sweden, summing up his 40 years of work on the subject in his book: Synthetische Artbildung:
“There are about 250,000 different species of fossil plants and animals in the world’s museums. This compares with about 1.5 million species known to be alive on earth today…But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places.
“When you look for links between major groups of animals they simply aren’t there… Either they don’t exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn’t, or might be, transitional between this group and that…
“Museums have, for instance, countless piles of fossils of the early invertebrate sea creatures, and an equally large number of ancient fishes. Between the two, covering a period of about 100 million years, there ought to have been cabinets full of intermediates - indeed, one would expect the fossils to blend so gently into one another that it would be difficult to tell where the invertebrates ended and vertebrates began.
“But this isn’t the case. Instead, groups of well-defined, easily classifiable fish jump into the fossil record seemingly from nowhere: mysteriously, fully-formed, and in a most un-Darwinian way. And before them are maddening, illogical gaps where their ancestors should be.” - Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe
Point 3: The Matching traits point - is pure pseudo-science. Where’s the SCIENCE to back up the author’s opinion?
Point 4:Identifying vestigial traits - i.e., the idea that a human appendix is a ‘throw back’ to when they were a monkey or something.
Most of what arrogant western doctors consider to be ‘vestigial’ actually do have a use in the human body, just they haven’t yet figured it out, because they don’t know everything about human health.
Take a look at this article: Your Appendix is Useful After All as one example, but tonsils - another one of the ‘vestigial traits’ quoted by this author - are also part of the immune system and serve an important function in the body.
Point 5: Identifying Imperfect Characteristics - more pseudo-scientific opinon with no SCIENCE behind it.
Point 6: Studying Early Embryo Development - i.e the idea that humans used to be fish / monkeys etc because the embryo goes through a stage of looking like these creatures as it grows in the womb.
Ernst Haeckel, a german biologist, was the first person who proposed this idea, and even did a very nice text book showing how it occurred. There was just one problem: Haeckel blatantly faked many of his diagrams and falsified his ‘science’, something that he only admitted to many, many years later, after his theory had gained mainstream acceptance as being ‘scientifically proven’.
It’s amazing how much false ‘science’ the theory of evolution is built on (Piltdown Man, anyone?). or not really so amazing, as THERE IS NO REAL SCIENCE BACKING IT UP, as the post you sent is proving very nicely.
Point 7: Observing evolution over short time-scales - This is a non-point. No one is arguing micro-evolution, where a human being can grow taller etc, if fed better.
We’re talking about macro-evolution here - where an ape become a human - and there is NO evidence for that whatsoever.
Point 8: Simulating evolution on computers. Gosh, well this is SUCH a scientific argument that I’m stumped for a rejoinder on this one. If it was simulated on computers than it must be real. And Darth Vader is alive and well, and Shrek is living somewhere in Miami.
Please, FANATICAL EVOLUTIONIST, send me some REAL science, not pseudo-scientific opinion that insults the reader’s intelligence.
So you accuse me of showing no evidence of evolution and then you proceed to show no proof of God.
Mate, you’re the one who got all upset that I didn’t ‘believe’ in the theory of evolution. Evolutionists like to harp on about how scientific they are, and how rational they are. All that’s happened here is that I’ve clearly demonstrated that evolution requires much more ‘belief’ - and suspension of intellect - than God does.
Evolutionism is the religion of atheism, and is preached at people with alarming fanaticism. But facts are facts, and the facts show that evolution is a crock.
At least be honest enough to accept that evolution is a false theory, and stop having a go at people who prefer to believe that God created the world. At this stage of the game, the scientific evidence is tilted far more towards ‘creation’ than evolution.