Science Disproves Evolution

[Mirrorglass]

I assume you are intelligent enough to figure out what the post is referring to and what the scientists are concluding. Why should I add my words when the subject has been so clearly presented by those who are qualified.

Because many of your quotes are lies, and almost all others are taken out of context? Because the only thing you are actually proving is you don't understand what you are talking about, but don't mind lying about it? Because it would show you at least can think about this, instead of just copying pieces of text? Because it would suggest you've at least read what you are regurgitating?

 

[Pahu]

There is one thing you really need to consider, Pahu. Your title is wrong. Science doesn't really 'disprove' anything. Science provides proofs, based on the information and the evidence.

If there are two hypotheses about origins, and one (evolution) is shown to be in conflict with known laws of physics, and the other (creation) is shown to be in harmony with those laws, hasn't evolution been disproved? For example, the fossil record contains not one transitional life form as predicted and required by evolution. Instead, it reveals all life forms appear suddenly with no development from former life forms as predicted and required by creation.

In the case of the Theory of Evolution, There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that shows that it is indeed likely to be true.

Where is that "overwhelming amount of evidence" to be found? Apparently only in the imaginations of those who need to believe in it.

In order for you to unseat Evolution as the prevailing view on the variety of life on the planet, you need a new theory, backed by solid evidence and facts.

So, what do you replace Evolution with? And remember, it has to be scientific, testable, and falsifiable.

Evolution is replaced by creation in harmony with known laws of physics. Stay tuned.

 

[Pahu]

Pahu,

Prove creationism to me. Show me a pre Cambrian bunny rabbit. Prove there is a god and then prove to me what he did. You want supplant the obvious (evolution) prove creationism. Even if you were to falsify evolution you still need to prove creationism. Come on, step up here.

Well, ok, if I must. I'm not sure what your pre Cambrian bunny rabbit has to do with anything outside of Easter, but when we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.

The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.

“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes” (From In the Beginning by Walt Brown, Ph.D. page 5). [http://www.creationscience.com/]

Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.

Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.

The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell.

[From “Reincarnation in the Bible?” http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=SKU-000005147#]

 

[Pahu]

A hundred year old "quote" found only in creationist literature. Hmmmmmm.
I would also remind you that evolution was fairly widely accepted before Darwin, the issue was the lack of a plausible theory to show how it might have taken place, which Darwin supplied. Perhaps you've heard of Dr. Darwin?

Written about 150 years ago. And you condemn a 100 year old quote?

You do know thet Hitching believes in evolution don't you? He believes it's directed externally, though not by a god. His book ridicules fundie creationists as well; he also believes in Atlantis, pyramid power, dowsing, ESP and astrology, do you agree with him about them too?
Of course he has no background or credentials in science either.


Wow. You do know Fix isn't a creationist? He has his own crazy theory, psychogenesis. His book is rather dated rubbish from a complete crackpot.


Please try for real scientists not shills for the Institute for Creation Research.


Oddly enough posting a quote mined from Origin, published 150 years ago, aren't helping your case; in those subsequent year many transitional fossils have been found. You just refuse to accept them because that reality contradicts your worldview.


Denton's silly book is eviscerated here. Of course you won't dare read this because it might cause you to think for yourself....

Wow argument by random creationist quotemine, very effective.
OK I'll leave Mendel and his pea plants to others.

Most of the material from Brown's book is confirmed by scientists, most of whom are not creationists and/or do believe in evolution. Some other authorities are not scientists. Evolutionists often attack the scientific credentials of any scientist who rejects the theory of evolution. This is known as The Credential Attack. They have to do this because:

There is so little scientific evidence that supports evolution.

What little evidence they have is highly questionable.

I haven't posted on this forum long enough to present confirmation of all of them in the information being shared, but if I am able to continue, you will eventually be exposed to them all, which are:


Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, etc.

The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:

American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts

 

[Dancing David]

Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, etc.

The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:

American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts

Whose quotes support what premisre?

 

[Marduk]

Most of the material from Brown's book is confirmed by scientists,

Its odd though that the vast majority of them have gone on record to state that they were either deliberately quoted out of context by brown or simply lied about,

You were shown this pages ago, that you ignored it and keep repeating the same lie shows that youre about as honest intellectually as brown is
I.E. neither of you are worth listening to as you are both huge liars who'd say anything to con people into listening

We're smarter than that here, youre no longer making any point at this forum unless its
"hey look at the monkeys throwing faeces again and hoping they'll stick"

 

[Dancing David]

I doubt very much that Alan Guth has any bearing on whatever nonsense you are presenting, why is his name of the list.
Arp, Lerner, Burbidge, Hoyle and Narlikar (they are there because they like to pretend that the Hubble contant is not caused by cosmological recession) but why Guth pahu?

And why Peebles?
And why Labini?
And why Cowie?

Or are you just parroting?

I doubt any of those four support Bown's conclusions.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Pahu, you're arguing that because life has never been observed originating from non-living material, it never happens.

Before we go any further, two quick questions: Has Pluto ever made a revolution around the sun? If so, how do you know?

 

[Wowbagger]

Folks, if you are going to debate the merits of evolution by citing which scientists were quoted where, please do so in the appropriate thread. Thank You.

 

[Simon39759]

[Mendel’s Laws]..have since been superseded by new knowledge.

Such as?

You mentioned Mendel's laws last week and were answered immediately. You apparently did not bother to read the answers, but here was mine:

OMG! Mendel law! 1916!
What cutting edge science!

That's actually more interesting that it seems. Indeed, back when genetic become more wide spread, some people argued that it put the theory of evolution to rest...
Because evolution would be limited to selecting from a unvariable allelic pool, there would be a limit to its 'creativity'... This truly was one of the biggest testable, falsifiable, prediction of the theory of evolution...

But, already by that time, Thomas Hunt Morgan (he conducted his experiments in 1911) had shown that the Mendelian law were not perfect and knew exceptions... It was later shown that it was due to mutations in the genomes introducing new information... And so, the prediction of the theory of evolution bore true, in a rather triumphant way...

If there are two hypotheses about origins, and one (evolution) is shown to be in conflict with known laws of physics, and the other (creation) is shown to be in harmony with those laws, hasn't evolution been disproved?

First of all, it is a false dichotomy, there is more than two hypothesis, some of them are scientific in nature, Lamarckism for example, and have been rejected. Other religious, for example, there is a multiple of creation myths, you wouldn't automatically get to claim you Christian God as the alternative. Finally, it is almost certain that our current theory of evolution will prove inaccurate to some details and will be corrected, it has been in the past. Each of these corrected variant could be considered another alternative...


Anyway, the point is moot as: a) you have failed to show that evolution conflict with the laws of physics. You mentioned the 'biogenesis' law (that would anyway be violated just as much by creation) and displayed a severe misunderstanding of Pasteur's experiment and a failure to understand that the theory of evolution and abiogenesis are two distinct area of science. Disproving the later (which you failed to do) would have no impact on the former.
You understanding of the entropy principle was similarly shown, with quite considerable detail, to be equally flawed...
b) You're alternative, divine creation, is actually even more in conflict with the laws of physics. It not only would contradict the so-called biogenesis law but the existence of an all powerful, all knowing eternal God would also contradict everything we know about the entropy principle and our understanding of brain and conscience and of the physical nature of time and... well, really, a lot of science... Sure, you can wave this contradictions away by invoking magic, fair enough, it is at least consistent with your basic premise. But you can't pretend that this, somewhat, is consistent with the known laws of physics as described by science...

For example, the fossil record contains not one transitional life form as predicted and required by evolution.
Instead, it reveals all life forms appear suddenly with no development from former life forms as predicted and required by creation.

Yeah... Except for the part where it doesn't...
Life forms do not 'appear suddenly'. Are you referring to the Cambrian explosion?
Because we have evidence of much older life-forms... as far back as 3.4 billions years. Also, the Cambrian explosion ran for 80 million years. The changes certainly were rapid by evolutionary standards, but that hardly constitute an overnight (or weekly as the case might be) episode of creation as you seem to have misunderstood it...
Also, we have plenty of transitional forms. I had a mention of the subject, with a few links, in the post you ignored:
Linky 1
Linky 2
Linky 3

Where is that "overwhelming amount of evidence" to be found? Apparently only in the imaginations of those who need to believe in it.

Once again, people provided evidence, you just ignored them. Anyway, here are a few for you to answer too... please address these...
-Transitional species actually do exist. In fact, it is the reason why transformism was accepted before Darwin came along and constructed his theory of evolution. You (or was it JQ?) seem to believe it was artificially conjured by lying scientists, while, in reality, it was what Darwin was trying to explain in the first place...
-The tree of life was constructed based on fossil evidence yet, genetic sequences matches it almost perfectly, including for the majority of non-coding sequence or for the sequences in which the difference observed have no effect (many molecules, for example hemoglobins, will work perfectly well if dropped into a totally different organism, and yet, the primate hemoglobins are much more similar to each other than they are other mammals, and all mammals hemoglobins are more similar than they are to, say, the birds...).
- The fact that the independent dating methods, such as the genetic clocks and radiometric dating, produce consistent results.
- The presence of ERV at the locations that you'd predict from the tree of life (as mentioned in my previous post that also failed, apparently, to capture your interest).
- The appearance of the human chromosome 2 that is exactly what you would expect from a fusion of the primate chromosome, as illustrated by Miller (also mentioned in the same post.

So, yes, please, rather than ignoring them, address how these do not, actually, constitute evidence for evolution...

 

[ArmillarySphere]

...

I'm just going to go through some of your presuppositions, and point out where you go wrong...

We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause).

That is a philosophical law, not a physical one, and is not true in many quantum-mechanical processes. Cause and effect tend to be pretty vague concepts in QM.

Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.

Hold it! You cannot infer a "before" the universe just because there is a beginning, and even that is in doubt.

With some relativistic formulations, there is simply no time at all prior to the beginning of the universe. With some other ones, the universe originated is the result of an earlier universe collapsing and "rebounding" out to our present one. In either case, this statement is false.

4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.

Having demolished the prerequisite of these two clauses, they fall along with it.

6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.

As noted, this does not hold true. Certain quantities have to be conserved such as energy, baryon number etc, but there are ways around that. For instance, there are relativistic solutions where the total energy of the universe is zero - the mass and energy are exactly balanced by the gravitational field energy, which is negative.

7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.

This falls due to a number of the above clauses being disproved.

8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).

And here we go wrong again. As far as I know, there is no law of biogenesis. The silly creationist example of bacteria in a peanut jar is hardly worthy of a response, but here goes:

The first kind of life that arose was not even a prokaryote, but simply an RNA molecule with enough machinery to copy itself.
Going from the "RNA world" form of life to the first simple prokaryotes took millions of years, and going from there to eukaryotes took more millions of years. Even after that time, the life in question was increadibly primitive by today's standards. Remember, even a single cell incorporates quite a bit of machinery to work efficiently.
Today, billions of bacteria and other parasites exist that will happily devour any form of life unequipped to deal with them. Competition is fierce, and the losers have short life spans.

Therefore, any new start of the long process of life is doomed to fail. Your peanut butter prokaryotes will be dissolved in your stomach juices, processed by your gut bacteria and add to the nutritional value of the PB&J you just ate. Even if you should by some miracle be infected by them, your immune system exists to deal with such novelties.

10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Unsupported and thus refuted.

 

[joobz]

1. The universe exists.

Agreed.

2. The universe had a beginning.

Time and space share a common origin. that isn't the same as saying the universe has a beginning. Do you call the top of a sphere it's beginning?

3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.

Nor was there time. So, There couldn't be a "before".

4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.

We have no ability to state what was before the big bang. Therefore your definitive statement here is unknowable.

5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.

Conclusion wrong because of fault in premise 4.

6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.

except for the times when we observe Something coming from nothing (e.g., virtual particles^WP)

7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.

Premises false(specifically points point 2,3,4,5,6), therefore conclusion invalid.

8. Life exists.

Agreed.

9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).

That isn't a law, but I'll grant you that is the observation.

10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.

False. Assumes information not in evidence.

11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.

Premise 10 unproven, therefore conclusion 11 is false. This represents an affirming the consequent logical fallacy.

ETA: Notice that Armillaryspace independently made very similar analysis of the arguments presented I did (beat me to the punch, as it were). The fact that two people were so readily able to independently identify the problems with your argument means you should form counterarguments or concessions based upon our observations. This would mimic the peer review process and allow you to formulate a more logical argument supporting a god created universe.

 

[Simon39759]

Well, ok, if I must. I'm not sure what your pre Cambrian bunny rabbit has to do with anything outside of Easter, but when we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). But the law of causality has been proven to not apply in several cases, for example, it does not apply to atomic decay Based on this law, we can use the following logic:

1. The universe exists.
Ok, you got one right.

2. The universe had a beginning.
We don't know that actually. We know that the universe use to go much smaller than it was, and, going back in time, our model take us to a time when it was tiny and highly energetic. But then our models break down in Planck time, presumably, the universe was even smaller but we don't really know.

3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
Nope! As said, our models break down we don't know what happened during Planck time. However, because time appears to be intrinsically linked to matter and energy, the idea of a before the universe, before time and matter, is likely non-sensical

4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
As said, no, you can't assert that.

5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
But no.

6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.
Even if we granted your previous, unsupported assertion, that statement is also wrong. We actually know that 'nothing' can produce 'something'. Vacuum energy is an example...

7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural. And... failed...

8. Life exists.
Wow, that's two correct statement in one post!

9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
Hurm? No. First of all, life produce life out of non-life as a trivial matter.
More importantly, this statement lacks a precise definition of life. Essentially, the definition of life generally boils down to 'a bunch of complex biochemistry occurring at the same time, at the same place. Taken individually, most of this biochemistry occurs from non-life elements, it is done in a trivial matter in a lab, after all, what is a PCR but an in vitro replication of DNA metabolism? So, putting all these non-living chemistry in the same place should produce life, right?
Case in point, the DNA, cell-walls, the various elements of life, are all, taken independantly, non-living. Yet, put them together, and voila artificial life!
Finally, this statement seem to illustrate a misunderstanding of the scientific method and the term 'scientific law'. A law is not something the universe has to conform to (presumably, you get fined if you don't). A law, simply, means something that has always been observed to be true. A law is a) not 'stronger' than a theory, b) can always be rejected if new observation surface that contradicts it. Which, by the way, Venter and his team, did.

10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
As said, nope.

11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.
But... supernatural events have never been observed before. So, I can actually suggest the law of 'non supernaturalism', aka, supernatural events and entities, do not exist, and it will have as much validity, actually more as it has not been contradicted yet, than the law of biogenesis. In fact, because life has never been observed as coming from supernatural causes either, I think the law of biogenesis, could be amended to included these too.

My remarks are in blue.

 

[Shalamar]

If there are two hypotheses about origins, and one (evolution) is shown to be in conflict with known laws of physics, and the other (creation) is shown to be in harmony with those laws, hasn't evolution been disproved? For example, the fossil record contains not one transitional life form as predicted and required by evolution. Instead, it reveals all life forms appear suddenly with no development from former life forms as predicted and required by creation.

Creationism hasn't been shown to be in harmony with anything.. Other than an old book.

You are also mistaken/wrong about a couple things. Evolution does not touch the concept on where life came from, or how it arose. The Theory of Evolution cares onto about how populations of life have changed over time to present day.

Also, you do not see transitional forms, because all life is transitional. All of it. Also, there are a great number of fossils that do show 'transitional' characteristics, but since you are bvlind to anything, except your religion, you refuse to accept it.

Evolution is also not a Hypothesis. GO to the site www.notjustatheory.com to read and unstand why scientific theories differ from a hypothesis.

Where is that "overwhelming amount of evidence" to be found? Apparently only in the imaginations of those who need to believe in it.

Crack open a biology book. Take some university classes. Read talkorigins.org. All these places will show how what happened, complete with references. explanations, and how the experiments were accomplished.

Evolution is replaced by creation in harmony with known laws of physics. Stay tuned.

The Theory o Evolution does not break the laws of physics. An intelligent being who created everything... can not be proven, can not be shown to actually exist, and a book says that life was created from dirt. How would this follow the laws of physics? Please show you work, and what experiments we can do to show this.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Since evolution does not deal directly with abiogenesis, I fail to see how a supernatural origin for life would invalidate evolution. So if some deity poofed the first microbe into existence, how would that disprove evolution?

 

[stijndeloose]

Since evolution does not deal directly with abiogenesis, I fail to see how a supernatural origin for life would invalidate evolution. So if some deity poofed the first microbe into existence, how would that disprove evolution?

Exactly. I wouldn't.

 

[X]

If there are two hypotheses about origins, and one (evolution) is shown to be in conflict with known laws of physics, and the other (creation) is shown to be in harmony with those laws, hasn't evolution been disproved? For example, the fossil record contains not one transitional life form as predicted and required by evolution. Instead, it reveals all life forms appear suddenly with no development from former life forms as predicted and required by creation.

Hilighting mine.


Actually, it contains legion.

But for some reason, creation proponents re-define the phrase "transitional form" into something both absurd and completely disconnected from what the Theory of Evolution actually predicts.

 

[laca]

You do realize we're arguing with a guy who has been shown to have quoted obvious lies, has been asked to retract them and has yet failed to do so, or I have missed it.

 

[godless dave]

If there are two hypotheses about origins, and one (evolution) is shown to be in conflict with known laws of physics, and the other (creation) is shown to be in harmony with those laws, hasn't evolution been disproved?

No, because evolution does not conflict with known laws of physics.

For example, the fossil record contains not one transitional life form as predicted and required by evolution. Instead, it reveals all life forms appear suddenly with no development from former life forms as predicted and required by creation.

This is a flat-out lie.

 

[stijndeloose]

No, because evolution does not conflict with known laws of physics.



This is a flat-out lie.

Yep. Tiktaalik, anyone?