Science Disproves Evolution

[aggle-rithm]

In other words: "Go away! We can't tolerate facts that disprove what we want to believe!"

No, you were asked to return when you had learned more about the subject matter.

If we couldn't tolerate facts, why would you be asked to come back when you have more of them?

 

[Belz...]

No one made God; He is infinite and outside of time, and He existed before time began.

So if the universe existed outside of space and time "before" the big bang, then you'd be ok with it ?

 

[Nonpareil]

What does the easter bunny have to do with evolution?

Nobody but you was talking about the Easter bunny. That you think they were only proves my point.

Is an eternal universe physically possible?

Did I say that the universe was eternal?

Stop strawmanning.

No, let's take a look at that assertion. When was life created in the lab?

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/090111-creating-life.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-artificial-molecule-evolves-in-the-lab.html

Has that ever been observed.

Yes.

Is there any evidence it ever happened?

Yes.

The narrow definition of biological evolution does not include an explanation of the origin of life from inanimate matter.

Exactly. That's my point. That is not what the theory of evolution deals with. That is another theory entirely, known as the theory of abiogenesis.

Cosmic evolution

Cosmic evolution is a straw man argument created by Kent Hovind. It has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution, and you will not find a single legitimate scientist who supports it.

In other words: "Go away! We can't tolerate facts that disprove what we want to believe!"

No, it means exactly what I said. You do not understand the subject being discussed. You have not done any serious research on it, and you are not qualified to raise serious objections against it. Go do some research and come back when you understand what you are talking about.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Pahu, when you state that God is "outside of time," what do you mean?

 

[Nonpareil]

Also, what is this about different ages? Are you assuming the different strata were laid down over millions of years? Since there was a global flood, the strata and the fossils in them were laid down at the same time.

There was no global flood.

 

[Craig4]

Pahu, when you state that God is "outside of time," what do you mean?

And while you're explaining it, how about providing some evidence?

 

[Sideroxylon]

There was no global flood.

Yeah, that sort of became apparent with the development of geology as a science - when people started to examine through physical evidence the story the earth was telling. This was a little after they started to realise the earth was rather older than might be calculated from Biblical genealogies.

This is the soft underbelly of the whole young earth creationism movement and where their ignorance and obfuscation is easily visible to people with even a limited interest in science. I am sure it troubles quite a few YECs.

 

[catsmate]

Written about 150 years ago. And you condemn a 100 year old quote?

Wrong Darwin actually, you really should Do The Research.....

Most of the material from Brown's book is confirmed by scientists, most of whom are not creationists and/or do believe in evolution. <stock creationist/religious garbage snipped>

That'd be the scientists who say they've been misquoted, taken out of context and/or quote mined? Those scientists?

 

[catsmate]

I doubt very much that Alan Guth has any bearing on whatever nonsense you are presenting, why is his name of the list.
Arp, Lerner, Burbidge, Hoyle and Narlikar (they are there because they like to pretend that the Hubble contant is not caused by cosmological recession) but why Guth pahu?

And why Peebles?
And why Labini?
And why Cowie?

Or are you just parroting?

I doubt any of those four support Bown's conclusions.

The material he cites is from a standardised list used by creationists for many years; the oldest version dates back to Usenet and talk.origins.
Like most creationist garbage it doesn't get corrected or updated much.......

 

[catsmate]

Since evolution does not deal directly with abiogenesis, I fail to see how a supernatural origin for life would invalidate evolution. So if some deity poofed the first microbe into existence, how would that disprove evolution?

It wouldn't. Neither would initial creation by intelligent aliens, beings from another universe or time or some variant of panspermia.

 

[catsmate]

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

It's not really lying if they're "lying for jeebus"

 

[catsmate]

Aren't you arguing for an eternal universe? Is that physically possible? The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy).

Only if the universe is a closed system............

 

[catsmate]

And why does this initial cause have to be YHWH, the malevolent, jealous, genocidal god of an ancient bronze-age desert tribe?

Because the whole purpose of creationism is to desperately shore up belief in their god. If the initial cause wasn't their god then all their belief in in vain.

And why would the cause of the Universe care if I coveted my neighbour's ass?

You're lucky. I have to travel miles to find a donkey to covet......

What does the easter bunny have to do with evolution?

Is an eternal universe physically possible? The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore, the universe had a beginning and since the universe is everything that exists, could it exist before it existed? Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence. What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it, wouldn't it?

No, let's take a look at that assertion. When was life created in the lab?

Has that ever been observed. Is there any evidence it ever happened?

I see he's back to answering every point with a question. He must have received some advice on standard creationist tactics.

Where did I mention the Bible? I said creation. Also, what is this about different ages? Are you assuming the different strata were laid down over millions of years? Since there was a global flood, the strata and the fossils in them were laid down at the same time.

So no babble, but you do cleave to one of the main planks of xianity. One that's long been disproved, as you'd know if you read the replies to you in this very thread.

In other words: "Go away! We can't tolerate facts that disprove what we want to believe!"

Wow. Given that every point you've raised has been shown to be untrue, irrelevant or just plain wrong this really is a shining example of hypocrisy.
Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

 

[Pahu]

Natural Selection 1

An offspring of a plant or animal has characteristics that vary, often in subtle ways, from those of its “parents.” Because of the environment, genetics, and chance circumstances, some of these offspring will reproduce more than others. So, a species with certain characteristics will tend, on average, to have more “children.” In this sense, nature “selects” genetic characteristics suited to an environment—and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism’s gene pool is constantly decreasing. This is called natural selection (a).

a. In 1835 and again in 1837, Edward Blyth, a creationist, published an explanation of natural selection. Later, Charles Darwin adopted it as the foundation for his theory, evolution by natural selection. Darwin failed to credit Blyth for his important insight. [See evolutionist Loren C. Eiseley, Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1979), pp. 45–80.]

Darwin also largely ignored Alfred Russel Wallace, who had independently proposed the theory that is usually credited solely to Darwin. In 1855, Wallace published the theory of evolution in a brief note in the Annals and Magazine of Natural History, a note that Darwin read. Again, on 9 March 1858, Wallace explained the theory in a letter to Darwin, 20 months before Darwin finally published his more detailed theory of evolution.


[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences8.html#wp1194028]

Do not copy and paste large amounts of text from other websites.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[Mirrorglass]

I'm beginning to feel this is going against the forum rules. Pahu is clearly refusing to actually talk about anything, choosing instead to copy and paste pieces of text from another author. It's more annoying than anything else, and pretty much a picture of the definition of "spam".

 

[Dinwar]

Hutton felt that certain geological formations supported an old earth. Those geological formations are explained, not by time, but by a global flood.

Please show how a flood can create an angular unconformity (the formations Hutton specifically used to demonstrate an old Earth) can be formed by a flood. Note that many angular unconformities cut several hundreds of meters of rock, and the younger rock frequently includes pieces of older rock within it; both the thickness and the fact that the older rock was lithified prior to the deposition of the younger rock need to be explained.

 

[I Am The Scum]

So is the argument now, "Darwin was a jerk, therefore evolution is false?"

 

[Nonpareil]

<snip>

All of which is irrelevant to whether or not evolution is true.

Does this mean that you've given up?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Natural Selection 1

An offspring of a plant or animal has characteristics that vary, often in subtle ways, from those of its “parents.” Because of the environment, genetics, and chance circumstances, some of these offspring will reproduce more than others. So, a species with certain characteristics will tend, on average, to have more “children.” In this sense, nature “selects” genetic characteristics suited to an environment—and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism’s gene pool is constantly decreasing. This is called natural selection (a).

On the surface this is almost accurate. But I can tell that Brown is the source because of the fundamental errors. It sounds like something written by a high school biology student with a C average. Let's take it apart:

An offspring of a plant or animal has characteristics that vary, often in subtle ways, from those of its “parents.”

The variations are virtually always subtle. And why the quotation marks?

So, a species with certain characteristics will tend, on average, to have more “children.”

Individuals, not species. Individuals will pass on favorable mutations to their offspring. If these new traits offer a reproductive advantage then they will increase in frequency within the species' gene pool.

Therefore, an organism’s gene pool is constantly decreasing.

Where does he get this?

a. In 1835 and again in 1837, Edward Blyth, a creationist, published an explanation of natural selection. Later, Charles Darwin adopted it as the foundation for his theory, evolution by natural selection. Darwin failed to credit Blyth for his important insight. [See evolutionist Loren C. Eiseley, Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1979), pp. 45–80.]

Failed to credit Blyth? In the first chapter of On the Origin of Species Darwin wrote "Mr. Blyth, whose opinion, from his large and varied stores of knowledge, I should value more than that of almost any one, ..." Darwin did not invent the idea of natural selection, nor did he claim to. It was an idea common among naturalists in the mid nineteenth century. Blyth had written a few papers on the subject that impressed Darwin so he wrote to Blyth about his own ideas. Blyth had proposed that natural selection tended to preserve the archetype rather than give rise to new species. Blyth was delighted with Darwin's interest in his work, writing that he was "much gratified to learn that a subject in which I have always felt the deepest interest has been undertaken by one so competent to treat of it in all its bearings". Later, it was Blyth who brought Wallace's paper to Darwin's attention, writing to inquire "What think you of Wallace's paper in the Ann. M. N. H. ? Good! Upon the whole! ... Wallace has, I think, put the matter well; and according to his theory, the various domestic races of animals have been fairly developed into species. ... A trump of a fact for friend Wallace to have hit upon!".

Brown's attempt to paint Darwin as an intellectual thief is dishonest.

Darwin also largely ignored Alfred Russel Wallace, who had independently proposed the theory that is usually credited solely to Darwin. In 1855, Wallace published the theory of evolution in a brief note in the Annals and Magazine of Natural History, a note that Darwin read. Again, on 9 March 1858, Wallace explained the theory in a letter to Darwin, 20 months before Darwin finally published his more detailed theory of evolution.

This is blatantly dishonest on Brown's part. More than enough of the history of this subject is available to demonstrate that Darwin did not steal the idea from Wallace. Later, Wallace agreed that Darwin's was the far more thoroughly developed idea and enthusiastically supported it. Darwin and Wallace remained life-long friends and Wallace was one of the pallbearers at Darwin's funeral.

Edward Blyth also showed why natural selection would limit an organism’s characteristics to only slight deviations from those of all its ancestors. Twenty-four years later, Darwin tried to refute Blyth’s explanation in a chapter in The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (24 November 1859).

Blyth's work was shown in his own lifetime to be erroneous. He himself expressed his enthusiasm for Wallace's paper.

Darwin felt that, with enough time, gradual changes could accumulate. Charles Lyell’s writings (1830) had persuaded Darwin that the earth was at least hundreds of thousands of years old. James Hutton’s writings (1788) had convinced Lyell that the earth was extremely old. Hutton felt that certain geological formations supported an old earth. Those geological formations are explained, not by time, but by a global flood. [See
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartII.html#wp1074931]

There is no geological evidence of a world wide flood. Brown is letting his desire to believe ancient legends override his logic.

Darwin was confronted by a genuinely unusual problem. The mechanism, natural selection, by which he hoped to prove the reality of evolution, had been written about most intelligently by a nonevolutionist [Edward Blyth].

As explained, this is not a problem. It is no secret that Darwin was not the only person to work on the idea of evolution. His work was simply the most detailed and well developed. Eiseley is either an incompetent historian writing on a subject that he is ill informed about, or he is deliberately taking advantage of his reader's ignorance to mislead them.

Geology, the time world which it was necessary to attach to natural selection in order to produce [hopefully] the mechanism of organic change, had been beautifully written upon by a man [Charles Lyell] who had publicly repudiated the evolutionary position. Eiseley, p. 76.

Again, we are confronted by what is either Eiseley's incompetence as an historian or his dishonesty. Lyell later expressed his acceptance of Darwin's theory, and even if he hadn't, it would not have invalidated it. Einstein's rejection of quantum mechanics did not invalidate the theory.

Charles Darwin also plagiarized in other instances.

By the reasoning employed, all scientists are plagiarists. Darwin never claimed to have formulated his theory in a vacuum. His work is filled with references to the works of others. We see here creationists taking advantage of their reader's ignorance of the history of science in order to attempt to paint Darwin in a negative light.

 

[Foster Zygote]

So is the argument now, "Darwin was a jerk, therefore evolution is false?"

I guess that dooms Newtonian physics.