A site that convincingly argues against evolution and what atheistic scientists don't want us to know?

Question

Only for the truly open-minded.

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/1016/1016_01.asp

For those who criticize this sight, everything on it can be verified using reputable sources directly from the internet. All Chick did was compile the information at his disposal, and yours if you care to check it out. Your bias is showing.

Hanover, it's so much deeper than "scientists can't explain." So much. For one, it's impossible, and scientists have indeed built a supercomputer, megacomputer if you will, just to figure out how proteins fold as they do - get it wrong, cell dies, pack it too full, cell dies, wrong sequence, cell dies, wrong start stop point, cell dies. It will take this computer 1 full year to do what our rna does in far less than the blink of an eye. And scientists are now tossing out the old theory about amino acids developing on their own in the sea because amino acids deteriorate rapidly in water. So now they're focusing on RNA, which has never been produced outside a living cell. It can't be, and try as they might, scientists are completely stumped, baffled and incapable of producing them under any conditions.

What's more, scientists have termed the machine that turns the rna and dna within a cell on and off a "real factory," because they refuse to admit that the machine itself required a creator, as we all know all machines do, real factory indeed.

"There is none so blind as those who will not see." Everything I have ever heard a Christian accused of I see with my own eyes has amounted to nothing more than the lack of character of his accusers.

Not to mention ignorance. It's a universal defense mechanism to accuse others of faults that we ourselves possess. But you knew that, didn't you.

Well, Neil, tell me, what exactly is behind Door Number 3?

TAA, scientists themselves admit there wasn't enough time to create life, now they're saying it must have happened rapidly, very. They have created their own paradox, but of course you don't know anything about that. Why would you?

Kelly, I am well aware of the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. You circled the block and never did come to the point, which is: it has been repeatedly argued here and elsewhere that evolution gave rise to the origin of life, (this is really no secret and requires no explanation, but) the site I posted answers accordingly, and to the contrary. All that you said was off the subject. I know that evolution has presently been observed, to a degree, but that has nothing to do with the argument for evolution as the origin of life. There are many scientific journals to quote from. Pick one. I don't mean to offend, but this really is the case.

Sheep, excellent site.

Aviator, all, one must understand the vast complexities involved to understand why and how life cannot begin from nothing. To understand why scientists theorize, disprove, and then scramble back the petri dish to start yet again from the beginning, forgive the pun. To come up with anything other than the obvious - intelligent design. It is not believers who have their heads in the sand, not be far. I have glimpsed enough of the way you think. It's true, many Christians can't answer the hard questions they're confronted with any better than you can. We all fall back on our presuppositions and take it from there. One of the main differences is that Christians have never doubted the origin of life on earth, we have adhered to the same belief for 2,000 years, and before that out Jewish forefathers for at least another 4,000. Scientists, however, defend their newest "theory" with ferocity until it's proven wrong. Then they're once again off and running. I see you in a new light.

Where Did the Information in Cells Come from?
The DNA of a bacterium contains as much information as a 1000 page book. What is information? The principle dictionary definition is, "knowledge communicated or received…."2

Speaking of the information in DNA, Philip Johnson explains,

"By information, I mean a message that conveys meaning, such as a book of instructions.… Information is not matter, though it is imprinted on matter.… Instructions in the fertilized egg control embryonic development from the beginning, and direct it to a specific outcome."3

Professor Werner Gitt, who works in the field of information science writes:

"There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is there any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this."4

This statement, if true, destroys the whole basis of the idea that no intelligent mind was involved in the formation of the first life. Is his statement true? All known languages,

alphabets and codes, as well as the information spoken or written in them, originated in minds. The faith of the atheist that the first life was an exception is contrary to all known evidence.

Aviator, you're splitting hairs to avoid the subject. Semantics don't change the facts.

Answer 1

Keep your facts to yourself. Their false science is their religion. If you tell them otherwise they are afraid that there might be a God.

Answer 2

you're in a bit of a pickle here because of the word "convincingly". Scientists have set certain standards as to what passes "convincingly" as proof, and I'm guessing that's not going to fly with you. The other word that has you stuck is "against". Now, if you were willing to settle for 3 out of 4 I could give you a site that "convincingly argues evolution." That is a wonderful site called trueorigin.org.
From what I read of your site, you have found something
scientists can't yet explain (and fully admit they can't explain, by the way) - the primitive chemical origins of life - and said well, if they can't explain that then the whole thing is bogus. You're betting that as our knowledge of our universe continues to grow that no one will ever have a scientific answer to this question. That's quite a bold position to take and I encourage you to step back and think about it for a second. Imagine yourself a peasant at the turn of the last century. Now imagine yourself a peasant at the turn of this century... listening to your ipod :) We're only just beginning!

-Response-
summerfest, I'm well aware of the complexity of the issues, particularly the one you alluded to concerning protein folding. It's a fascinating problem (one that I spent a summer working on, in fact) pioneered by Christian Anfinsen (link below).
Please be careful throwing around the word "impossible" - it gets redefined all the time. I admit that there is a limit to human knowledge, but who are you to draw that line in the sand? Can we at least keep pushing and not stunt our intellectual growth by throwing our hands in the air and saying "can't explain this easily - must be God." Whether you assign "God" to the mysteries of our day and age is a personal choice, but please don't throw dirt in the eyes of the people trying to make the most of human ingenuity.

Answer 3

Hello!! You are talking about 2 completely different fields of study...the theory of evolution does not claim to explain the origins of life only how life evolves, and it has been proven to occur therefore it is now a theory.

Abiogenesis is an hypothesis as to how life may have come about from non-living matter. It has not yet been proven or verified and no scientist has claimed that it is fact. Thats why it is called an hypothesis. It is merely a tentative extension to the theory of evolution and nobody has yet verified it with evidence. Science is still conducting tests to see if it is a viable hypothesis.

Excerpt from wikipedia..
In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory.

A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις) consists either of a suggested explanation for a phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal suggesting a possible correlation between multiple phenomena. The term derives from the ancient Greek, hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose." The scientific method requires that one can test a scientific hypothesis. Scientists generally base such hypotheses on previous observations or on extensions of scientific theories.

Do you see the difference now? what you are arguing in fact has nothing to do with proving evolutionary theory as false.. We know that a hypothesis has to be tested and retested before it can be proven either false or factual. You are basically just saying that one testing of the hypothesis about the origins of life, merely disproved that life started in that way.. that doesnt mean that abiogenesis did not occur under different circumstances and different methods.. we cannot say that life did not start from a "primordial soup" until we have tested and falsified every concievable way that it could have occured.. It in no way proves that speciation, natural selection, genetic drift etc as proposed in the theory of evolution does not occur and it has really nothing to do with that.

Answer 4

The isn't a convincing argument against evolution and I truly doubt there ever will be. I'm religious but still love evolution, I dont understand what the big problem is. That part of the Bible comes from a time when people were asking questions about where things came from and why they were here. They needed answers, and made them. Many parts of the Bible are factual, proven by archaeological evidence, some may be metaphors or a moral story, and some may be answers that were badly needed at a time no answers existed.

Answer 5

Ok, what is your question?

edit: As a Deist, I do believe that there is evidence in nature that supports the idea of a higher being. The problem I have with most creationists is that it is not enough to simply say that there is higher creator being. No, it has to be the Christian god who is responsible. The fact of the matter is, that even if you had proof beyond any doubt that there was a higher creator being, that does not automatically translate into proof of the Christian god. For all we know it may be a god who is completely foreign to any known revealed religion.

Answer 6

The truly open minded would believe that some questions have not been answered. That some theories cannot be validated at his point due to the lack of technology available to scientists.

This was an experiment conducted in 1953. We may not have the tools to discover these answers for some 500+ years.

Do you actually believe that humanity has reached the point where it answer any question? Consider that 300 years ago, society still burned women at the stake due to witchcraft. Did we know of ergotized rye back then?

Things take time, humanity is still in it's infancy.

Answer 7

This has nothing to do with evolution smart guy. Abiogenesis is what the beginning of life is. And this just proves one hypothesis wrong, it doesn't prove any other hypothesis right. So there still could be, yet unknown, ways for life to come form nothing. And it doesn't even really prove the hypothesis wrong, it just raises a lot of questions that would need to be answered before it would be accepted as a theory.

Answer 8

Alright. I clicked it. I read it. It's interesting. I'll admit that. I think that the origins of life are still a mystery. I do not know for sure how the first cells came into existence, but I still don't believe some god just put them here.

Answer 9

Arguing the holes in evolutionary science is not the same as arguing for a deity. The criticisms may be important, but point only to an incomplete field of science, not an untruth and certainly not a deity.

Answer 10

Pure garbage. Not a single statement on this website has any basis in fact. All reputable scientists accept evolution as fact. Only uninformed religous zealots believe the drivel on this web site.

Answer 11

HAHAHAHAHAHAA None other than Chick Himself, the self-styled hate monger and anti-Christian bigot who has poisoned the minds and hearts of thousands with his idiotic tripe. Like I would ever go to a site with his name in the URL. Most anti-science sites are just ignorant and stupid. Chick borders on insanity. No thanks.

Incidentally, atheistic scientists and theistic scientists both accept exactly the same evidence - the scientific evidence. Otherwise they are not scientists at all.