Science Disproves Evolution

[Tubbythin]

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.

This is the first time I have ever read this definition.

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

No, in other words learn what the theory of evolution states, not what creationists would like you to think it states.

 

[Simon39759]

What does the easter bunny have to do with evolution?

Cambrian rabbit^WP...

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?

It's not possible for this universe, but it certainly is possible for this universe to be part of a greater whole, in the second law would not apply; certainly, some studies do suggest so...
It is extremely hypothetical so far, but at least, it does not contradict known scientific facts, contrary to your Godly intervention hypothesis...

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

Sometime before May 2010...

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

Yes, as pointed to you several time before. Ignoring the other side's argument does not constitute an arguement...

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.

You are supposed to give credits when quoting an external source...

Regardless of your definition, it has nothing to do with the theory of evolution as defined by science.

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

Well, we wouldn't know about that until you start providing some... So far, you have given us plenty of lying quote mines, a few misunderstood scientific principles, such as the 2nd laws of thermodynamic and Pasteur's biogenesis... and... that's about it...

 

[John Jones]

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.

Are you denying that you strongly alluded to the bible? Which global flood are you referring to then, and where is it documented?

 

[Pahu]

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.

Your list of denials is impressive. I don't have the time or inclination to respond to each one, but I thought I would share some information on this one:


Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates the cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing. For instance, Paul Davies writes:

…spacetime could appear out of nothingness as a result of a quantum transition…Particles can appear out of nowhere without specific causation…Yet the world of quantum mechanics routinely produces something out of nothing.

But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing. Davies himself admitted on the previous page that his scenario ‘should not be taken too seriously.’

Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate—their ‘quantum vacuum’ is a lot of matter-antimatter potential—not ‘nothing’.

Also, I have plenty of theoretical and practical experience at quantum mechanics (QM) from my doctoral thesis work. For example, Raman spectroscopy is a QM phenomenon, but from the wavenumber and intensity of the spectral bands, we can work out the masses of the atoms and force constants of the bonds causing the bands. To help the atheist position that the universe came into existence without a cause, one would need to find Raman bands appearing without being caused by transitions in vibrational quantum states, or alpha particles appearing without pre-existing nuclei, etc.

If QM was as acausal as some people think, then we should not assume that these phenomena have a cause. Then I may as well burn my Ph.D. thesis, and all the spectroscopy journals should quit, as should any nuclear physics research.

Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or cat which appeared. This universe can't have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldn't have any properties until it actually came into existence.

A last desperate tactic by skeptics to avoid a theistic conclusion is to assert that creation in time is incoherent. Davies correctly points out that since time itself began with the beginning of the universe, it is meaningless to talk about what happened ‘before’ the universe began. But he claims that causes must precede their effects. So if nothing happened ‘before’ the universe began, then (according to Davies) it is meaningless to discuss the cause of the universe’s beginning.

[Author: Jonathan Sarfati, Creation Ministries International. First published in: Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 12(1):20-22, 1998.]

http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.html

 

[Tubbythin]

Where did I mention the Bible? I said creation. Also, what is this about different ages?

Urmm...

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.

 

[Pahu]

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

We live in, among other things, a time dimension where one event follows another. Time passes. Everything ages. Throughout our lives, we learn that effects always have causes. We would be confused if they didn’t. Therefore, it is hard to imagine the first cause, and even harder to imagine what, if anything, preceded “The First Cause.”

Just as God created the universe and everything in it, God also created time. There was a beginning of everything, including space and time. Consequently, God is outside of space and time. This means that God is unchanging (I Sam 15:29, Mal 3:6, Heb 6:17, James 1:17). He had no beginning and has no ending.

Also, and more pertinent to the question, from God’s perspective an effect does not follow a cause. He sees the beginning and the end (Rev 1:8, 21:6, 22:13). Asking who made God before time began reflects a lack of understanding—even though most of us at one time have pondered the question. No one made God; He is infinite and outside of time, and He existed before time began.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ317.html#wp4705577

 

[John Jones]

[...]

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

Nor should it necessarily do so.

Maybe you wanted to talk about cosmology or something, but didn't have it clear in your head?

 

[John Jones]

Originally Posted by Pahu
Where did I mention the Bible? I said creation. Also, what is this about different ages?
Urmm...

Originally Posted by Pahu
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.

Busted! (I hope I quoted that right.)

 

[John Jones]

We live in, among other things, a time dimension where one event follows another. Time passes. Everything ages. Throughout our lives, we learn that effects always have causes. We would be confused if they didn’t. Therefore, it is hard to imagine the first cause, and even harder to imagine what, if anything, preceded “The First Cause.”

Just as God created the universe and everything in it, God also created time. There was a beginning of everything, including space and time. Consequently, God is outside of space and time. This means that God is unchanging (I Sam 15:29, Mal 3:6, Heb 6:17, James 1:17). He had no beginning and has no ending.

Also, and more pertinent to the question, from God’s perspective an effect does not follow a cause. He sees the beginning and the end (Rev 1:8, 21:6, 22:13). Asking who made God before time began reflects a lack of understanding—even though most of us at one time have pondered the question. No one made God; He is infinite and outside of time, and He existed before time began.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ317.html#wp4705577

Dude, creation science is an oxymoron, not a source of credibiility. Even "Creation Scientists" avoid that appellation anymore.

 

[Tubbythin]

Your list of denials is impressive. I don't have the time or inclination to respond to each one, but I thought I would share some information on this one:

Not denials, reasoned arguments.

Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates the cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing. For instance, Paul Davies writes:

…spacetime could appear out of nothingness as a result of a quantum transition…Particles can appear out of nowhere without specific causation…Yet the world of quantum mechanics routinely produces something out of nothing.

But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing. Davies himself admitted on the previous page that his scenario ‘should not be taken too seriously.’

Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate—their ‘quantum vacuum’ is a lot of matter-antimatter potential—not ‘nothing’.

Also, I have plenty of theoretical and practical experience at quantum mechanics (QM) from my doctoral thesis work. For example, Raman spectroscopy is a QM phenomenon, but from the wavenumber and intensity of the spectral bands, we can work out the masses of the atoms and force constants of the bonds causing the bands. To help the atheist position that the universe came into existence without a cause, one would need to find Raman bands appearing without being caused by transitions in vibrational quantum states, or alpha particles appearing without pre-existing nuclei, etc.

If QM was as acausal as some people think, then we should not assume that these phenomena have a cause. Then I may as well burn my Ph.D. thesis, and all the spectroscopy journals should quit, as should any nuclear physics research.

Errm... I never said that QM was acausal.
As to whether QM produces something out of nothing... that really depends on your definitions of "something" and "nothing". As I keep saying, if we trace observations back 13.7 billion years, then we find that the Universe was in such a hot, dense state that our understanding of the laws of physics break down. The idea that the Universe was created from nothing at around that point is not supported (or for that matter ruled out) by any scientific evidence. The assertions to the contrary are of your own making.

Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or cat which appeared. This universe can't have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldn't have any properties until it actually came into existence.

So why don't have an explanation why the Universe we have is the one that we have (barring anthropic arguments). So what? That does not give you, or anyone else for that matter, the license to make crap up about supernatural beings and expect to be taken seriously.

A last desperate tactic by skeptics to avoid a theistic conclusion is to assert that creation in time is incoherent. Davies correctly points out that since time itself began with the beginning of the universe, it is meaningless to talk about what happened ‘before’ the universe began. But he claims that causes must precede their effects. So if nothing happened ‘before’ the universe began, then (according to Davies) it is meaningless to discuss the cause of the universe’s beginning.

Nothing wrong with this except for the claim this is a desperate tactic. It is generally held that discussing what came before the Big Bang is, at best, speculative. Quite what point you think you were trying to make is beyond me.

[Author: Jonathan Sarfati, Creation Ministries International. First published in: Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 12(1):20-22, 1998.]

http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.html

You should learn how to quote other people properly.

 

[Pahu]

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.

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.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that did not come into existence.

 

[Pahu]

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".

We live in, among other things, a time dimension where one event follows another. Time passes. Everything ages. Throughout our lives, we learn that effects always have causes. We would be confused if they didn’t. Therefore, it is hard to imagine the first cause, and even harder to imagine what, if anything, preceded “The First Cause.”
Just as God created the universe and everything in it, God also created time. There was a beginning of everything, including space and time. Consequently, God is outside of space and time. This means that God is unchanging (I Sam 15:29, Mal 3:6, Heb 6:17, James 1:17). He had no beginning and has no ending.
Also, and more pertinent to the question, from God’s perspective an effect does not follow a cause. He sees the beginning and the end (Rev 1:8, 21:6, 22:13). Asking who made God before time began reflects a lack of understanding—even though most of us at one time have pondered the question. No one made God; He is infinite and outside of time, and He existed before time began.


[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ317.html#wp4705577

 

[Marduk]

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

OOh bible fail

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

This supposedly was dictated by God
so when he says "in the beginning" he's talking about right at the start. so apparently he believes in a chronology, are you now doubting him because he doesn't agree with you ?
priceless

I was going to laugh at the irony of your claim that God wasn't created as well, apparently you are claiming that life can't evolve from non life, yet God has never changed at all, while at the same time he's leaving evidence that everything changes.
Bit of a trickster isn't he, on a level of course that would only fool you


did you find a picture of that pre cambrian bunny yet ?

also, are you just pretending that you haven't heard that Brown has a criminal record for fraud and grand larceny for embezzling money from that orphanage ?

 

[Tubbythin]

We live in, among other things, a time dimension where one event follows another. Time passes. Everything ages. Throughout our lives, we learn that effects always have causes. We would be confused if they didn’t. Therefore, it is hard to imagine the first cause, and even harder to imagine what, if anything, preceded “The First Cause.”

Causality requires a chain of events separated in time. If time began at the Big Bang (as per the big bang cosmology you are trying (and completely failing) to use to support your arguments) then there can be no cause for it since there is no preceeding time.

Just as God created the universe and everything in it, God also created time. There was a beginning of everything, including space and time. Consequently, God is outside of space and time. This means that God is unchanging (I Sam 15:29, Mal 3:6, Heb 6:17, James 1:17). He had no beginning and has no ending.

That is not peer reviewed scientific literature.

Also, and more pertinent to the question, from God’s perspective an effect does not follow a cause. He sees the beginning and the end (Rev 1:8, 21:6, 22:13). Asking who made God before time began reflects a lack of understanding—even though most of us at one time have pondered the question. No one made God; He is infinite and outside of time, and He existed before time began.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ317.html#wp4705577

And I suppose you've got peer reviewed scientific papers that give direct evidence for God's existence (both inside and outside of time). Otherwise it's just random proclamations from a 2000 year old book and a website with an oxymoron for an URL.

 

[Brainache]

We live in, among other things, a time dimension where one event follows another. Time passes. Everything ages. Throughout our lives, we learn that effects always have causes. We would be confused if they didn’t. Therefore, it is hard to imagine the first cause, and even harder to imagine what, if anything, preceded “The First Cause.”

Just as God created the universe and everything in it, God also created time. There was a beginning of everything, including space and time. Consequently, God is outside of space and time. This means that God is unchanging (I Sam 15:29, Mal 3:6, Heb 6:17, James 1:17). He had no beginning and has no ending.

Can you link to the experiments and the work done by these ancient writers to arrive at their conclusion? Because it looks to me like they just made it up, so some kind of verifiable data would be appreciated (oh, and starving yourself out in the desert until you halucinate is not acceptable).

Also, and more pertinent to the question, from God’s perspective an effect does not follow a cause. He sees the beginning and the end (Rev 1:8, 21:6, 22:13). Asking who made God before time began reflects a lack of understanding—even though most of us at one time have pondered the question. No one made God; He is infinite and outside of time, and He existed before time began.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ317.html#wp4705577

And other religions say different things. How to choose?

 

[John Jones]

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.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that did not come into existence.

These arguments have been dealt with before, and you have consistently ignored your interlocutors.

 

[Shalamar]

I sense... Special Pleading..

 

[Pahu]

Soruce: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences7.html#wp1053690]

Bounded Variations


Not only do Mendel’s laws give a theoretical explanation for why variations are limited, broad experimental verification also exists (a). For example, if evolution happened, organisms (such as bacteria) that quickly produce the most offspring should have the most variations and mutations. Natural selection would then select the more favorable changes, allowing organisms with those traits to survive, reproduce, and pass on their beneficial genes. Therefore, organisms that have allegedly evolved the most should have short reproduction cycles and many offspring. We see the opposite. In general, more complex organisms, such as humans, have fewer offspring and longer reproduction cycles (b). Again, variations within existing organisms appear to be bounded.

Organisms that occupy the most diverse environments in the greatest numbers for the longest times should also, according to macroevolution, have the greatest potential for evolving new features and species. Microbes falsify this prediction as well. Their numbers per species are astronomical, and they are dispersed throughout practically all the world’s environments. Nevertheless, the number of microbial species is relatively few (c). New features apparently don’t evolve.

Edited by Locknar: 

<Snip>...edited, breach of Rule 4.

 

[Tubbythin]

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.

I already thoroughly debunked this nonsense. You claim you don't have time to respond to all my posts and yet you still have plenty of time to post the same rubbish over and over again. Funny that.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that did not come into existence.

If that is the case then there is clearly no need for God since the Universe can be the uncaused cause.

 

[Simon39759]

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.

All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that did not come into existence.

You were asked before not to use material from elsewhere without attributing it...

And you were also explained with this explanation was not valid (basically, we don't know that the second law applied before Planck time)...