DNAunion 001: Design vs. Chance (False) Dichotomy

Before providing scientific evidence against Young Earth Creationism, and for evolution, DNAunion addresses the false dichotomy of design vs. chance often used by Creationists.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Young
• Earth
• Creationism
• Creation
• evolution
• design
• chance
• dichotomy
• DNAunion

[DNAunion]

@TheExtremeBiblicist

"Constancy" is not a presumption. Scientific theory makes predictions going back to the time of the CMBR, and before, and tests have confirmed the predictions.

And your "explanation" is quite ridiculous; it is no more reasonable and no more supportable than someone saying that magical unicorns manipulated the physical universe.

By they way. WHY would God intentionally plant misleading information all over the universe?  Is He the Great Deceiver?

[DNAunion]

@TheExtremeBiblicist

Nope. That is not what the Bible says.

In addition, Jesus Himself made a prophecy that failed, showing that the Bible is not an reliable source.

[DNAunion]

@TheExtremeBiblicist

Fail.

There is no valid, objective, positive evidence in what you posted showing that Armageddon is actually going to happen.

[DNAunion]

@TheExtremeBiblicist

Sorry, but that cannot be what we observe scientifically, because "kind" is not a scientific term.

Please, define "kind."

[DNAunion]

@TheExtremeBiblicist

Sigh. The typical anti-evolutionists' argument from increduility. "I can't imagine how it could happen, therefore it couldn't."

Evolution has had some 3.5 BILLION years to generate the variety of life we see today. Do you comprehend how long that is? How about you try this. Count (from 1, by ones, of course) as fast as you can until you reach 3.5 billion. Then let me know how long it takes you.

[DNAunion]

@TheExtremeBiblicist

You are obviously way behind on your origin-of-life studies.

Start by reading up on Jack Szostak's fatty-acid vesicles.

[DNAunion]

@TheExtremeBiblicist

Evolutionists absolutely can "skip" abiongenesis.

Abiogenesis attempts to explain how life arose; evolution explains how life changed after that. So evolution requires that life already exist.

Have you even bothered to read Darwin's "The Origin of Species?"

You seem to conflate evolution with naturalism. They are not the same.

[TheExtremeBiblicist]

@DNAunion Just in passing, FYI, in connection with the timing of Armageddon, Matthew 24:29 speaks of the "sign of the son of man" that would appear to the elect after the State of Israel is set up. That 1 promised miracle is has been observed and is known in the "temple" sect religion of Jehovah's Witnesses. So some of us (albeit not non-believers) have direct proof of God and holy spirit. This tends to make us take a much harder line on depending on science re. reality of God. Sorry.

[TheExtremeBiblicist]

Sorry, but adding trillions of years to beat the odds to explain how evolution produced the biosphere here on earth as we know it just doesn't get it for creationists. Evolutionists want to convenient skip abiogenesis, but sorry, you can't. ITMT an embryo evolves into an infant in just 9 months. So the concept of evolution is fundamental throughout creation. But it doesn't take a trillion years. That's just my viewpoint. Thanks for your video. I like your presentation.

[TheExtremeBiblicist]

Creationists PROBLEM: Even atheists and evolutionists admit the leap from inorganic to viable organic is a huge leap. Amino acids form in the presence of electricity if the basic elements are there but that is a very long way from a single cell developing and then being viable. When you look at the VARIETY of life you know evolution is an inadequate answer. The Bible says God created many things to produce after its kind, which is what we observe scientifically now.