creationism, where is the evidence???!!! i see none, page 8

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
My point was not to say ‘we don’t know’ if it was random chance, my point was to say random chance is the driving force of evolution until you can prove otherwise, which you can’t.
www.randallniles.com...

Nope, it isn't the driving force. Selection is. The randomness of mutations provides the variation for the non-random selection to act on. In biological evolution (and I'm using this term to stop you equivocating), you can't have one without the other. Lets say we have a population pumping out individuals with random variations, but no selection. What do you think would happen?

Haha. Who is that video dude? Does he have any science qualifications at all? I think I'll add him to the idiot box with Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort.

He is wrong in numerous ways in that video. Life has been around for probably 3 billion years on the earth, not 600 million. He misrepresents evolution numerous times, it is not a case of macroevolution then microevolution. They are essentially both the same process, just viewed from different scales.

There is no such thing as kinds. The bible gives all 'kinds' of level of definition of this word, from species to whole biological families.

Moroever, I don't see how you think that shows evolution, both cosmic and biological is random. As I have been trying to say consistently, it is not random that, for example, when a star goes nova that other elements are formed. Similarly, for biological evolution it is not random that individuals most adapted to the environment are better able to pass their genes on.

If I blended a frog up and left it outside somewhere so it can be hit by radiation, the sun, lightning or however evolution explains it, for billions of years would it turn into a frog? No because it’s impossible.
www.randallniles.com...

This is a pretty silly argument. There are organisms that consume all types of organic compounds now. It is a poor expression of the ideas in abiogenesis research.

Everybody uses faith to fill in a gap at some point, even the greatest scientists.
www.randallniles.com...

There’s no evidence that the Big Bang happened.

Errm, yes, there is. Lots actually.

This one video does convey some of the ideas I raised earliet about 'what came before' the big-bang. As I noted, there are many ideas, and multi-universes is just one. The difference between positing such ideas and stating 'goddidit' is that one is likely to be testable and falsifiable, the other isn't. One encourages investigation, the other is a dead-end.

Then he starts rambling about punk-eeq, jeez, he is good at misrepresentation. Punk-eeq really just states that biological evolution can change in rate. Indeed, we see evidence of hypermutation in the genome under stress.

And as for Hoyle and panspermia, it's one idea, not too sure about his idea of it though, it doesn't require aliens, it just says that life might have been transferred through the cosmos via various mechanisms.

This guy knows how to misrepresent science and scientific ideas. People like Hoyle should raise these sorts of hypotheses, we then look for evidence. Indeed, at this point we haven't found any, so it is not widely accepted. Same goes for multiverses etc. They are hypothesis, if they can be tested and falsified, they are scientific.

This is what I wanted you to see.

But, again, I need to see the working on it.

We can see where he is going, though, with the term 'spontaneous formation'. This is tornado in the junkyard BS. I know ashleyD also likes to misrepresent probability and evolution using this canard.

Thus, what he appears to be assessing the probability of is a group of amino acids spontaneously forming some protein he has decided on. That's not the way it would work.

Why are we still trying to show evolution to be wrong? Is that all you have?