Science Disproves Evolution

[Wowbagger]

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

It might be worth pointing out that there are some hypothetical "Initial Conditions" that occured "before"* the Big Bang.

We might not know, (yet), what those Initial Conditions were like, exactly. But.... (and this is important)..... it was NOT NOTHING!

The argument that naturalists believe the Universe came "from nothing" is not accurate. The Universe came from some initial condition, that was something. And, we only have a hypothesis or two about what that something was like.

(*I use the term, here, in a manner not constrained by the four dimensions we are familiar with. "Before" could refer to another dimension, instead of time as we know it, or something.)

 

[Ladewig]

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.

I guess I am not as intelligent as you assume. The concepts are not related to any idea previous developed in this thread and seem to appear in a random fashion. I consider my request to be exceptionally reasonable. Please explain why you have chosen each new topic and what the goal of that post is.

 

[Ladewig]

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.

No! Biblical creationism requires all animals to appear at the same time. The evidence that you are citing, animals appearing in different ages, cannot be used as evidence against evolution without also being used as evidence against Biblical creationism.


And as was already pointed out, you have a false dichotomy. Evolution being false does not make the Bible true - there are many other divine creation stories.

 

[Nonpareil]

Well, ok, if I must. I'm not sure what your pre Cambrian bunny rabbit has to do with anything outside of Easter

Then you do not understand the theory of evolution, and should not be participating in this discussion.

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.

"Before the universe" is a nonsensical phrase. There was no time before the universe, so you cannot say that the universe came from nothing - there was no time when the universe has not existed.

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.

Wrong.

Even ignoring for the moment that life has been created in the lab, your objection that life only comes "from the same kind" betrays another fundamental misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. We don't expect to see a cat give birth to a dog. We might, though, see a given population of cats give birth to a generation with slightly more dog-like traits, and see this happen repeatedly over thousands of years until all cat-like traits are replaced with dog-like ones.

“Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life.

Wrong.

This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis.

No, it isn't.

Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes”

Wrong. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. As we have noted repeatedly in this thread, you do not understand the theory which you are attempting to discuss.

Pahu, your efforts in this thread resemble nothing so much as a third-grader attempting to talk about differential equations. You do not understand the subject material, but your arrogance refuses to allow you to admit as such. Please, leave the thread and go pick up a biology textbook. Learn what the theory of evolution actually states. Come back when you have some idea of what it is that you are talking about.

 

[Elizabeth I]

For example, the fossil record contains not one transitional life form as predicted and required by evolution.

Those of you with more experience with this argument, can you tell me what creationists mean when they say this? It simply baffles me, since there are not only transitional forms but also existing evidence (junk DNA, fused chromosomes, the hammer-anvil-stirrup ear structure, and I'm sure much more) that support evolution. My brain has a hard time wrapping itself around the "no transitional forms" argument.

 

[Marduk]

Those of you with more experience with this argument, can you tell me what creationists mean when they say this? It simply baffles me, since there are not only transitional forms but also existing evidence (junk DNA, fused chromosomes, the hammer-anvil-stirrup ear structure, and I'm sure much more) that support evolution. My brain has a hard time wrapping itself around the "no transitional forms" argument.

I have several times posted links to pages which list every transitional fossil known to man, yet pahu has not acknowledged any of it

so the explanation is simple
willful ignorance for not checking the truth
and deceit for continuing to post the claim

 

[Simon39759]

Do you have such list? The only ones I could find made absolutely no pretension at exhaustivity (presumably, because such an extensive list would be huge and serve little purpose save contrasting creationists' misconceptions...).

 

[Marduk]

Do you have such list? The only ones I could find made absolutely no pretension at exhaustivity (presumably, because such an extensive list would be huge and serve little purpose save contrasting creationists' misconceptions...).

okay you got me, fair comment, perhaps I should have qualified that with "every transitional fossil known to man (which can be found on the internet and posted with a handy link) "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
thanks

 

[godless dave]

Those of you with more experience with this argument, can you tell me what creationists mean when they say this?

They are lying. They don't "mean" anything. They just want their audience to believe what they are saying.

 

[Tubbythin]

I'm going to add my list of objections to this nonsense.

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.

Nope. Simply untrue. We know that at a time in the past, the Universe was much hotter and denser than it is now. If we go back around 13.7 billion years then we get to a time when the Universe was so hot and so dense that the laws of physics we have, built from more "normal" conditions are incapable of describing the properties of the Universe. That does not mean we know that that was the beginning of the Universe.

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

Causality can be a tricky subject when it comes to quantum mechanics.

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

The following complete failure of logic actually.

1. The universe exists.

Well done.

2. The universe had a beginning.

We do not know this. This is not a claim of the big bang theory.

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

This is simultaneously tautolgically obvious and completely wrong. Which is quite an achievement. In short, in the Big Bang model it is (at least at the minute) impossible to say what happened before the big bang since this is essentially where time began. You can, if you like, choose to reject the big bang model all together. But then you need a new model to describe the universe. Something you quite clearly don't have.

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

Errm. I'll get back to this one.

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

The scientific evidence does not support this.

6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.

Completely, totally and unequivocally false. In fact stuff comes from nothing in the quantum world all the time. And it is where quantum mechanics becomes important that our understanding of the big bang breaks down.

7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.

Well, bearing in mind that points 2, 3, 5 and 6 were completely wrong this statement really has no justification whatsoever. Moreover this point explicitly contradicts point 4.

8. Life exists.

Correct.

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

Incorrect.

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

Of course it can. I am made up of a whole bunch of molecules and atoms. None of these are alive. But I am alive.

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

Since points 9 and 10 were false, no.

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.

Scientists tend to reject possibilities with no evidence which are in contradiction to the laws of science. And you think that is a bad thing?

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.

Firstly, we don't know that the Universe came from nothing. Secondly, not rejecting supernatural causes would not increase the number of scientifically valid answers since by definition supernatural causes are unscientific.

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.

Like all supernatural causes.

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.

Completely false.

“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/]

This is completely false, not least because evolution makes no statement about where the first life came from. You nicely illustrate in one single quote why Brown's book is of no scientific value whatsoever. And how you haven't even the slightest clue what you are talking about.

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

You can repeat this noesense all you want. It says nothing about the validity or otheriwse of evolution.

Now that we have seen proof that God exists,

No we haven't.

using logic

Nope. Your "logic" explicitly contradicted itself. It does not get more illogical than that.

based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation,

Except that almost every statement you made was false.

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.

I suppose you have done a full analysis of the success and failure rate of the Bible prophecies and can show that predictions are statistically significant. If not then you have nothing.

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.

10/10 for special pleading.

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#]

For "more detailed proof" one has to provide less detailed proof to begin with. This has quite clearly not been forthcoming.

 

[Simon39759]

okay you got me, fair comment, perhaps I should have qualified that with "every transitional fossil known to man (which can be found on the internet and posted with a handy link) "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
thanks

Crap, I am disappointed... I actually posted these two links earlier on this page...
I wanted such a useless but impressive list for a handy post... (not that it will change a creationist mind, but still, one can try...)


Thanks anyway...

 

[twinstead]

Shouldn't "life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind" also apply to God as well then?

 

[Marduk]

double post

 

[Tubbythin]

Most of the material from Brown's book is confirmed by scientists, most of whom are not creationists and/or do believe in evolution.

Nope. Brown claims his material is confirmed by scientists. That does not mean it is true.

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.

Absolute rubbish. There is overwhelming amounts of data to support evolution and only people like Brown who you have just explicitly shown either does not understand or deliberately lies about what evolution is (or both) in the denial camp.

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

That's nice. Were any of them explicitly quoted saying they agree with Brown. If not, strike them from the list since there is no evidence they support his stance.
In fact, lets see you actually do some research. Here's the list again but with a strike through every name:

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.

Now, when you can show quotes from any of the above saying they explicitly agree with Brown's conclusions, I will remove the strikethrough from there name. Until then, the null hypothesis will be that there is no evidence that each scientist agrees with Brown's conclusions.

 

[Simon39759]

Shouldn't "life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind" also apply to God as well then?

More than that... so far all the intelligence we have observed are the product of a biological brain, so: 'there can be no intelligence outside a biological brain' could also be made into a law.
Furthermore, so far, all entities observed had had physical limit in their power and knowledge, so 'there exist no all powerful entities' and 'there exist no all knowing entities' could also be laws as well as 'there is no all good entities' or 'people do not come back from the dead'; all of these could be accepted as scientific laws if anyone bothered suggesting them...

The idea the evolution (one again, actually abiogenesis) violates scientific laws but creationism does not is... ludicrous.

 

[Tubbythin]

If there are two hypotheses about origins, and one (evolution) is shown to be in conflict with known laws of physics,

a) Evolution is not a theory about origins.
b) Evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis.
c) Evolution is not in contradiction with any known laws of physics.

and the other (creation) is shown to be in harmony with those laws,

Which it isn't.

hasn't evolution been disproved?

If any of the above were true... Unfortunately you have made at absolute minimum, 4 completely wrong statements.

For example, the fossil record contains not one transitional life form as predicted and required by evolution.

Also completely untrue.

Instead, it reveals all life forms appear suddenly with no development from former life forms as predicted and required by creation.

What are you talking about?

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

Garbage.

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

The idea of a supernatural being is by definition contrary to the laws of physics. Could this not be more obvious?

 

[Rincewind]

It seems to be the same old, same old.

Surely the implied question "where did the universe come from?" is basically the same as "where did God come from?" Well, isn't it?

And to say that God has always existed (and where's the proof of that?) is begging the question - you could just as easily say that the universe has existed for ever.

Fail.

 

[Simon39759]

It seems to be the same old, same old.
Surely the implied question "where did the universe come from?" is basically the same as "where did God come from?" Well, isn't it?
And to say that God has always existed (and where's the proof of that?) is begging the question - you could just as easily say that the universe has existed for ever.
Fail.

I guess, the argument to that is: 'But the Big Bang proves us that it has not existed for ever'.
Which, of course, is wrong, as the Big Bang address the beginning of the current universe as we know it and does not address where the energy that formed the Big Bang came from, that might, as far as I understand, have always existed, in some form, somewhere...

 

[X]

Those of you with more experience with this argument, can you tell me what creationists mean when they say this? It simply baffles me, since there are not only transitional forms but also existing evidence (junk DNA, fused chromosomes, the hammer-anvil-stirrup ear structure, and I'm sure much more) that support evolution. My brain has a hard time wrapping itself around the "no transitional forms" argument.

Basically, he wants an animal that is literally half one animal, half another.

It's a dead giveaway that he
a) hasn't actually bothered to learn anything about evolution
b) gets all his arguments from morons like Kirk Cameron and Kent Hovind.


Crocoduck, anyone?



Side note: How do I get the "Wikipedia" link? The little superscripted WP one.

 

[joobz]

Side note: How do I get the "Wikipedia" link? The little superscripted WP one.

topic[*endslash wiki]
for example
crocoduck^WPWP" target="_blank">WP