Science Disproves Evolution

[Simon39759]

Using the tags: 'wiki'


As in:[wiki ]HTML [/wiki ]

Becomes:
HTML^WP

 

[Simon39759]

This is fun!

x^WP!

 

[Brainache]

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...

OOH OOH OOOh!!! So therefore: God is the energy! Yay, problem solved.

...Um except for the bits about hearing prayers and sending plagues and demanding sacrifice for forgiveness and giving laws and etc etc etc...

 

[Pahu]

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.)

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). 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, then before everything existed, it didn't exist, did it? 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.

 

[Pahu]

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.

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.

 

[Brainache]

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). 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, then before everything existed, it didn't exist, did it? 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.

But that simply raises the question of: Where did this external cause come from? If nothing comes from nothing, where did you God come from?

You have answered nothing by calling your unknown causal agent "God".

 

[Brainache]

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.

You do know that there never was a global flood, don't you? Why are there no mammal fossils in amongst the Trilobites?

 

[joobz]

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). 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, then before everything existed, it didn't exist, did it? 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.

You've ignored the fact that we have evidence of something coming from nothing. As such, your premise for a beginning to the universe (a concept I also disagree with) is completely false.

In other words, you really have absolutely no basis for assuming god is needed to explain the universe.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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). 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, then before everything existed, it didn't exist, did it? 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.

According to current cosmological thinking there is no "before the universe" (not to discount Wowbagger's point about initial conditions). This does not mean that the universe is eternal. There is no space/time "before" the universe. Asking what existed before space/time is like asking what is north of the North Pole.

 

[Tubbythin]

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). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old.

The laws of thermodynamics with respect to the whole Universe are rather complex. And the fact is that all we can say is that when we extrapolate back 13.7 billion years we get to a period where the laws of physics break down.
ETA: Should really say "our understanding of the laws of physics breaks down".

Therefore, the universe had a beginning and since the universe is everything that exists, then before everything existed, it didn't exist, did it? Something cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, something brought it into existence.

This is obviously self-contradictory. If we're talking about "before everything existed" then something cannot possibly exist to bring everything in to existence since that what ultimately mean we were not talking about a time before everything existed. Also, if time began at the big bang (which it basically does in current big bang models) then there can be no concept of "before".

What brought the universe into existence?

We don't know. We don't even know if it had a cause. It's all just speculation

It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.

Greater in what sense? And I don't understand the second half of the above sentence.

 

[Foster Zygote]

But that simply raises the question of: Where did this external cause come from? If nothing comes from nothing, where did you God come from?

You have answered nothing by calling your unknown causal agent "God".

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

 

[Foster Zygote]

You do know that there never was a global flood, don't you? Why are there no mammal fossils in amongst the Trilobites?

Creationists like Walt Brown posit a ridiculous hypothesis that the ordering we see in the fossil record is due to the differing intelligence and mobility of various animals. How plants figure into this hypothesis I can't imagine.

 

[Brainache]

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

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

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy).

That's not proper reasoning because there are infinite curves that never reach zero. There's also the problem that the universe is expanding and the value for maximum entropy is outpacing actual entropy. The current universe could be just one of many different phase changes.

 

[Pahu]

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

What does the easter bunny have to do with evolution?

"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.

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?

Even ignoring for the moment that life has been created in the lab...

No, let's take a look at that assertion. When was life 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.

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

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.

The narrow definition of biological evolution does not include an explanation of the origin of life from inanimate matter. Cosmic evolution does: Cosmic evolution is the scientific study of universal change. It is an intellectual framework that offers a grand synthesis of the many varied changes in the assembly and composition of radiation, matter, and life throughout the history of the universe. While engaging the time-honored queries of who we are and whence we came, this interdisciplinary subject attempts to unify the sciences within the entirety of natural history—a single broad scientific narrative of a possible origin and evolution of all material things, from an inferred big bang to humankind. (Closely related subjects include epic of evolution, big history, and astrobiology). It makes use of ideas of information theory, chaos theory, complexity, systems, and emergence.

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.

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

 

[Shalamar]

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.

This is actually testable. We can look at the fossil record, and the strata for evidence of a global flood.

When we look at the strata, we see that certain animals are ONLY found at certain strata. If there was a global flood ,Then we would see animals of all types being mixed up. Dinosaurs with people. Trilobites with rabbits. Ancient fish with modern fossils. Animals would also be found in all strata.

What we do see is that certain classes of animals are only found in certain strata. For example, we do not find rabbits in the layers that we classify as pre-cambrian. If we did find such a rabbit, in such a strata, it would be evidence that the Theory of Evolution could well be false. It is falsifiable.

 

[Brainache]

Creationists like Walt Brown posit a ridiculous hypothesis that the ordering we see in the fossil record is due to the differing intelligence and mobility of various animals. How plants figure into this hypothesis I can't imagine.

Yes maybe we should start asking them for examples of pre-cambrian rose bushes instead of bunny rabbits...

 

[Shalamar]

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?



The narrow definition of biological evolution does not include an explanation of the origin of life from inanimate matter. Cosmic evolution does: Cosmic evolution is the scientific study of universal change. It is an intellectual framework that offers a grand synthesis of the many varied changes in the assembly and composition of radiation, matter, and life throughout the history of the universe. While engaging the time-honored queries of who we are and whence we came, this interdisciplinary subject attempts to unify the sciences within the entirety of natural history—a single broad scientific narrative of a possible origin and evolution of all material things, from an inferred big bang to humankind. (Closely related subjects include epic of evolution, big history, and astrobiology). It makes use of ideas of information theory, chaos theory, complexity, systems, and emergence.



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

Perhaps you should provide some facts then. You do seem to be ignoring a lot of facts yourself.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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?

Have any thoughts of your own to offer, or are you just going to copy and paste other people's work?

 

[Foster Zygote]

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

What facts? All you've done is copy and paste invalid arguments from scientifically ignorant people like Walt Brown. I showed numerous examples of Brown's incompetence in the subjects he argues about. Would you care to address even one of them?