Critique of evolution

[Wutang]

If evolution is simple all about survivability and reproducing it does seem things such as consciousness, intelligence, and the other attributes that associated with the soul would be unnecessary. A being like a cockroach as mentioned in the above post or something like a rat would be the ideal if evolution was the truth.

 

[NSOE]

Bacteria are even better suited for survival in all types of environments, supposedly they're found in active volcanic zones too, they would be here if all bugs were gone as they are "older" in evolutionary terms. What kind of conditions would have caused them to develop further when bacteria are the epitome of evolutionary success.

But then it's even better to be inanimate matter. There is no real reason for existence, so it must come from outside of this world, from without, there's nothing here that would precipitate the emergence of life. Therefore the necessity of a creator is obvious.

 

[NSOE]

The joke gets better if we consider we are to believe that making a random change to computer code- deleting or inserting a character somewhere- will improve the program and turn it into a more advanced version. Replacing one or more lines with a lucky permutation will get us there, no bugs and errors or catastrophic failures.

How often does that happen. Never, but even if it did, what they say is this fortunate combination would have to occur once every few hundred thousand years- and again each time it happens the change must only be beneficial, additionally we can't have any negative events in between, since any one could in theory set us many steps back at best, but in fact would put us in a position from which we could never recover. So every random change we get must be an improvement, and no detrimental changes can ever occur for this model to work, because what is the probability that a random change will fix some earlier random change that broke the system.

But random genetic code mutations, we have to trust, work to produce innumerable varieties of working systems.

 

[Read_Lives_of_Saints]

Interesting thread from Keith Woods on evolution. Lots of cope in the replies about anything that disagrees with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is an illusion because we don't know if we're looking at an entire system or some smaller part.

It's basically the evolutionist saying, "I'm right and I know it because I can observe and know things, but you can never know if you're right because you don't know what you don't know."

---

Keith Woods:

"There was an influential atheist philosopher named Antony Flew who converted to philosophical theism late in life, after concluding that the complexity and information content of DNA couldn’t be explained by unguided material processes.

Even though religious people are generally hostile to evolution, I don’t think you can give a proper account of complexity like this emerging in an entropic universe without proposing some kind of purposive drive in nature."

 

[Northumber]

Evolution is just an elaborate attempt to deny coherence. It's a self defeating, self destructive, and absurdly self aggrandizing ideology.

 

[Giordano Bruno]

Evolution is just an elaborate attempt to deny coherence. It's a self defeating, self destructive, and absurdly self aggrandizing ideology.

We don't actually have a specific term for the claim that life spontaneously appeared through abiogenesis and it's adherents.

I dub it Autocreavit, or, Autocreavition. Self-Created in Latin.

In that sense, it makes sense, Atheists worship Self or the State. Or both.

 

[NSOE]

In that sense, it makes sense, Atheists worship Self or the State. Or both.

I've seen this in real life among those I know, self worship and everything that goes with it including the blind pursuit of status, while those whose god is the state want to use its power to destroy Christianity and "convert" the rest of us by force.

There's a short patriotic children's poem in Poland (Who are you? A little Pole), before WW2 it ended with the verse- And what do you believe in? In God I believe !, but then the communists replaced God with Poland, and so it remains to this day I bet if they still teach it in public schools. In Poland I believe.

Interesting thread from Keith Woods on evolution.

The X account he retweeted that video from does a good job with the explanation of why evolution is bunk when people come to understand what they're looking at:

This is the DNA Repair System. Look how many parts work together to make the system function.

Without DNA Repair, mutations in DNA would completely destroy its functionality very quickly - it would degrade rapidly into non-functional junk. Which means, the DNA Repair System would have to have been around since the very beginning of Life; DNA and the Repair Systems would have to arise together, at the same time, or DNA could not survive - and neither could Life.

But how complex is the DNA Repair System?It requires 6-7 major systems, working in coordination together. Combined, those systems contain a total of about 130-200+ total unique proteins that make up the systems to do the job.

Two things make this system most likely designed:
1. DNA cannot survive without DNA Repair. The entire system must be in place at the very start of Life, or Life never starts. But creating the systems requires the information in DNA - they both must arise together, simultaneously.
2. The specified, irreducible complexity of the system. DNA Repair requires a minimal amount of specifically engineered protein systems to function. Just look at how many separate systems are involved in that process! How can anyone see something like this and believe it arose by an accident of natural processes?

Life is so clearly intelligently Created.

The late health writer Bill Sardi once posted a video of a pair of macrophage- which are miracles of design by themselves- fixing a broken microscopic blood vessel, it looked amazing and impossible just like the DNA repair process, even though it's several levels up from there.

 

[Australia Sucks]

I started out as an atheist when younger and then moved over to the agnostic camp a few years ago. The theory of evolution is a bit like saying a tornado swept through a scrap-yard and turned a pile of junk metal into a working car. It’s simply absurd. Now I just admit it’s too hard to know how everything was created and just say “I don’t know”.

 

[Read_Lives_of_Saints]

I started out as an atheist when younger and then moved over to the agnostic camp a few years ago. The theory of evolution is a bit like saying a tornado swept through a scrap-yard and turned a pile of junk metal into a working car. It’s simply absurd. Now I just admit it’s too hard to know how everything was created and just say “I don’t know”.

Good analogy. It's also like if some trees fell in a forest and over time they trimmed themselves, cut themselves into regular pieces of lumber, and then ordered themselves into log cabins with iron stoves and copper plumbing.

Everything we observe is that it goes in the other direction, from greater states of order to lesser, but somehow evolution is assumed to be mysteriously different in-between observations.

 

[Lawrence87]

If you pick anything that supposedly evolved, lets say sexual reproduction. If you were to research the subject, you would likely find many different supposed scenarios that might have caused it to evolve.

To me this suggests that within the framework of evolution, it is easy to use its presuppositions to create a plethora of stories for how a certain thing could have evolved. So its not like its hard to just make stuff up that sounds plausible to evolutionists.

Given that any of these stories are also impossible to verify. It starts to become more and more clear how evolution can become accepted as the answer for everything and also be a load of made up nonsense

 

[Read_Lives_of_Saints]

If you pick anything that supposedly evolved, lets say sexual reproduction. If you were to research the subject, you would likely find many different supposed scenarios that might have caused it to evolve.

To me this suggests that within the framework of evolution, it is easy to use its presuppositions to create a plethora of stories for how a certain thing could have evolved. So its not like its hard to just make stuff up that sounds plausible to evolutionists.

Given that any of these stories are also impossible to verify. It starts to become more and more clear how evolution can become accepted as the answer for everything and also be a load of made up nonsense

Exactly! It's multiple layers of suppositions stacked on top of one another with mysterious and unproven bridges assumed to be connecting them somehow, and when you ask about how the bridges work, suddenly they transform into Schrodinger's drawbridges.

 

[Wutang]

To me this suggests that within the framework of evolution, it is easy to use its presuppositions to create a plethora of stories for how a certain thing could have evolved. So its not like its hard to just make stuff up that sounds plausible to evolutionists.

This sort of thinking is so common that there's a phrase to describe the fallacy: "just so story". Evolutionary psychology is rife with this. It is how you get these weird ad hoc theories for why homosexuality exists (childless uncles/aunts providing assistance for raising the offspring of their heterosexual siblings) because under this framework, everything that exists must exist because it provides some sort of advantage for reproduction even though having a homosexual orientation is the precise opposite of a reproductive advantage. Since homosexuality not being a benefit to reproductive success would destroy this framework, instead theorists must come up with some very out there explanation for it.