• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Science Disproves Evolution

Pahu said:
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.”
Click to expand...

That's a logical fallacy known as an appeal to incredulity, a form of the appeal to ignorance fallacy.
 
Pahu, pretty much every one of your recent posts has broken the forum rules
4. You will not post "copyrighted" material in its entirety and do not post large amounts of material available from other sites.E2
Click to expand...
so far you have posted half the book, the words you are posting are not your own and you have ceased using quote tags
the mods usually remove the entire post when this happens
;)
 
Pahu said:
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.
Click to expand...
False.
propagation of genes is typically life's goal. It need not acheive this with high population growth rates, and quite often fast population growth is contrary to species survival.

Pahu said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yikes, this isn't even close to right.
Evidence of new genes: Nylonase
The ability to rapidly adapt to local environments typically suppress ability to adapt to varied environments. Hence the reason for seeing extremely high diversity in local species but less so in global species.
 
Last edited:
joobz said:
False.
propagation of genes is typically life's goal. It need not acheive this with high population growth rates, and quite often fast population growth is contrary to species survival.


Yikes, this isn't even close to right.
Evidence of new genes: Nylonase
The ability to rapidly adapt to local environments typically suppress ability to adapt to varied environments. Hence the reason for seeing extremely high diversity in local species but less so in global species.
Click to expand...

You managed to cite BeAChooser for Pahu's quotes.:confused:
 
Marduk said:
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 ?
Click to expand...

I didn't know about that... but it's hardly relevant (poisoning the well and all that... does this fallacy also have a cool Latin name? It might be mocked at the logical fallacy playground if it doesn't...).
 
Pahu said:
Aren't you arguing for an eternal universe? Is that physically possible?
Click to expand...
A. There are cyclical universe theories that do not contradict any of the findings of science. Not even entropy. The Big Bang could have been an inflation into our dimensional configuration from some others.
There are also "topology"-related ideas, where the Big Bang emerged from space going from "flat" to "curved" or some such thing.

And, perhaps there are a few others. Science might not grant us a time machine to see which one of these was most accurate. But, that does not stop physicists from playing with these ideas, in abstract experiments, to learn more about the Universe, anyway.


B. That makes little difference, though. The argument that naturalists think the Universe came "from nothing" was all I was trying to debunk. The idea of an "eternal universe", right or wrong, is not "nothing".


C. If you have a problem with "eternal" ideas, why argue for your own "Eternal" one?

D. The Big Bang really doesn't have much to do with anything in biology, so we best get back on topic.

Pahu said:
What brought the universe into existence? It would have to be greater than the universe and be a sufficient cause to it.
Click to expand...
Some might argue that this "greater" thing wouldn't necessarily have to be intelligent or sentient or God-like at all. Physical forces are, themselves, pretty darn "great", even whem they are not guided.

That does NOT mean God does not exist, of course. It's merely a philosphical conjecture. But, don't be mistaken into thinking "God" is the only complete solution around to life, the Universe, and everything.
 
Simon39759 said:
I didn't know about that... but it's hardly relevant (poisoning the well and all that... does this fallacy also have a cool Latin name? It might be mocked at the logical fallacy playground if it doesn't...).
Click to expand...

No, my point, that I haven't heard that either, but just because it has no supporting evidence doesnt mean it hasn't happened

the same as the evidence for Pahus God
allegedly
;)
 
Is an eternal universe physically possible? The universe cannot be infinitely old...
Click to expand...
Even I understand this one. The universe, the best that current research can tell, is 13-billion-and-some years old.

The reason that the universe has always existed (not "is infinitely old") is that until there was a universe there was no time. So the universe may both have had a beginning and always existed, because "always" started when the universe started. (If you would actually read what people write, you might learn something. I finally understood this concept from some stuff I read on this forum.)


Foster Zygote said:
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.
Click to expand...
Wow, so when the trilobites moved in the mammals got all snobby and developed an attitude and said, "There goes the neighborhood" and moved to a higher stratum?
 
Pahu, I have a good question for you:

If one assumes that Evolution was disproven: What great, new, innovative insights would Creationism and/or Intelligent Design bring into the science of biology, that evolution completely missed out on?

What impact would those discoveries make in medical research, conservation, agriculture, or any other fields of your choice? Again, please use examples that evolution would miss, that ONLY creationism or ID would pick up on.

The following are some examples of problems you could try to solve, with Creationism. But, you are free to develop your own.

1. Finding cost effective solutions for brood parasites threating an endangered species of birds

2. Understanding the existence of endogenous retroviruses

3. Predicting the course of new forms of microbial viruses

4. Locating likely spots to dig for fossils of species not physically discovered, yet.

If Creationism can beat Evolutionary studies in anything of this sort, I would be very impressed.
 
Last edited:
Shouldn't the title of this thread really be magic disproves evolution?

Strata and geological deposits wouldn't settle as they have following a global flood? God magics it so
The ark can't hold/feed even the species mentioned? God magics it so
Genetic records are utterly incompatible with any known creation myth? God's magic again
Life can't come from non-life? Except by god's magic!
The universe has to be made? But god is excempt from that rule because... magic!

Now all that needs to be done is actually proving divine magic exists.
 
Simon39759 said:
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...
Click to expand...

Yeah - maybe the Big Bang - Big Crunch - Big Bang - Big Crunch theory turns out to be the case.
 
Pahu said:
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.
Click to expand...

The answer, which seems to drive some peopel crazy is "We don't knw", we don't know what the BBE 'came' from, we don't know what 'caused' it.

We don't know. The universe that we are in seems to be closed, we can not 'see' out side of it or 'before' the BBE, therefore we don't know.

The universe came from 'we don't know' does not equal the universe came from nothing.

It has what looks like a start time about 13.7 BYA, we do not understand the theories prior to t < 10 -36 seconds. Due to the current gap between QM and GR, our current theroies say 'we do not know'.
 
Pahu said:
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.
Click to expand...

That has yet to explain why it looks as though vesuvius in 30 million years old.

Or how you get shale in such a short time, or sandstone, much less lime stone.

Your mechanism for quartz was an epic fail.

Then there are the different fossils in all the layers, like the trilobites,.
 
Pahu said:
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
Click to expand...

Then lets see, the BBE came from 'we don't know' not from 'nothing', therefore the BBE did not come from nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom