Science Disproves Evolution

[Logical]

Pahu, I'm on the atheist's side here because I'm an old Earther and evolutionist (because I'm scientifically aware ).
What's the young Earther apologetic on the distance of galaxies and finite speed of light proving an old universe?
Astronomy iz cool

He's going to say the speed of light has slowed down over time. This was a hypothesis proposed by Dr. Walt Brown but has
been rejected by actual scientists.

Debunked here:
Speed of Light

But the best evidence we have is the triangulation of SN 1987 and calculating rate of change for a potential speed of light. Supernova 1987a The world must be at least 167,000 years old (or about), or simple trigonometry is fundamentally wrong... which would mean that pretty much all math beyond algebra is wrong...

and also if the speed of light can change then this alters fundamental equations to mass energy equivalency, E=mc^2. If true, then thousands of years ago a gram of matter would have yielded orders of magnitude more energy. This would have radical ramifications to the size, mass and lifespan of stars. For instance, our solar system would not exist because the sun would have once been larger than it.

 

[Phillipy]

So Pahu kind of accepts the big bang expansion, but millions of times faster and quicker! Or... does he not go so far back in density as the big bang before the creation event?

Pahu, do you accept that all the galaxies were basically in the same place, then expanded from that to this? (just 10,000 times faster than big bang cosmologists date it?)

It's sort of like a modified early inflation theory, it could be viable
Though you'd still be wrong about evolution

 

[Phillipy]

(I fluctuated my estimate of the difference from millions of times quicker to ten thousand times quicker there because I don't know how long ago you think the initial creation event was, probably 6 to 10 thousands I suppose. Whatever fraction of 13.8 billion years it is, is the fraction I mean.)

 

[basebool]

Science has created and supports evolution, the title is just wrong.

And quite frankly you're just a plain idiot if you believe in micro evolution an not macro. They are literally the same thing, the onlydifference is time. Get that through

 

[megaman125]

Science has created and supports evolution, the title is just wrong.

And quite frankly you're just a plain idiot if you believe in micro evolution an not macro. They are literally the same thing, the onlydifference is time. Get that through

Do you have any facts or expieriments that back up the assertion that micro leads to macro, or do we just have to believe based on blind faith that it does?

 

[basebool]

Do you have any facts or expieriments that back up the assertion that micro leads to macro, or do we just have to believe based on blind faith that it does?

Well if you accept micro evolution, then you also accept macro by definition. If small changes can happen in a small amount of time, the. Large changes can happen in a large amount of time.

Now do you want evidence of evolution or that macro is the same as micro?

 

[Logical]

Do you have any facts or expieriments that back up the assertion that micro leads to macro, or do we just have to believe based on blind faith that it does?

You don't have the correct understanding of micro and macro.

I'm going to try to make it simple.

Evolution is change over time.

Microevolution and Macroevolution are the same thing but Macro is over a LONG period of time.

Think of it like a baby being born and then eventually becoming an old person. The baby doesn't
just wake up one day as an elderly person, does it? No, it's a gradual progression from baby - young
child - teenager - young adult - middle age - old age.

Perhaps it may do you good to actually read a book on evolution and get the facts straight. And no,
not one that's recommended on Answers In Genesis or another site like that. They will misrepresent
what evolution actually is. And yes, the facts and experiments are actually there to observe but it
you're getting all your info from a faith based anti-science website you are not getting the correct info.
Simple as that.

 

[MatthewMichael]

Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles - George Wald

So time is their answer to God. Apparently, it's silly of us to say that "a loving, all-powerful God created everything", but it's not silly for them to say "we assume the earth is billions of years old and have no way of proving it, but we'll say we do, even though we don't. It's also not silly apparently for the age of the earth to change constantly... it has gone from thousands, to millions, to billions of years in only one century.. think how supposedly old it will be in 100 more after we discover more wonderfully complex parts of God's creation?

On the distance of galaxies thing: The Bible doesn't say he created things as "baby things" and let them grow. He created the universe, Adam and Eve, the plants, etc. in a mature state.

 

[Logical]

So time is their answer to God. Apparently, it's silly of us to say that "a loving, all-powerful God created everything", but it's not silly for them to say "we assume the earth is billions of years old and have no way of proving it, but we'll say we do, even though we don't. It's also not silly apparently for the age of the earth to change constantly... it has gone from thousands, to millions, to billions of years in only one century.. think how supposedly old it will be in 100 more after we discover more wonderfully complex parts of God's creation?

There is plenty of evidence that points to the earth being 4.54 billion years old. This does not disprove God but
the title of this thread is "Science Disproves Evolution" and that is total nonsense.

 

[Shiloah]

There is no differentiation between Micro and Macro evolution in the eyes in the vast majority of scientists.

I completely agree, and thats why scientists don't assert to be "100% right on everything", that appears to be your argument on the theistic end when referring to the torah and new testament.

When someone says this is "true" in the scientific community they are met with skepticism. Even some aspects of the law of gravity are still considered theory. I do not take anything on faith when it comes to science. When it comes to theories, I only see them as valid after the due process of the scientific method, even then I see it as the most likely explanation for the phenomenon. And yes evolution and speciation have been observed in laboratory conditions, and both are easily visible in the genetic pool.

There has never been a recorded occurrence of macro-evolution in written human history. And no, you can't count mold. When does full-blown macro-evolution happen? When a brand new species comes about where it didn't exist before, that theory will become fact. Not until. To say this happens over millions of years is a pointless way to support this argument. There is no proof of that either (the time aspect).

I think it's interesting that atheists who continually demand proof from Christians that there is a God go entirely on faith concerning a majority of their beliefs in science. What's more, they seem to even deny the obvious, that the earth cannot be proven to be any number of years old, or that macro-evolution has ever actually been observed in complex organisms. The answer always is, "well macro-evolution takes a lot of time, millions of years, in fact." That's a statement one must take on faith since there's no way to prove it's true.

All I'm saying is that atheists argue in the same way Christians do. They just believe that God doesn't exist while Christians believe He does. Both sides involve "belief," and belief is based on faith.

 

[Shiloah]

There is plenty of evidence that points to the earth being 4.54 billion years old. This does not disprove God but
the title of this thread is "Science Disproves Evolution" and that is total nonsense.

Well again, I'd say there's evidence, but there's obviously not proof. There's evidence of a lot of things, but if it's inconclusive, what good does it do? It just leads to tons of speculation in an attempt to fill in the blanks, that's all.

 

[Phillipy]

Do you have any facts or expieriments that back up the assertion that micro leads to macro, or do we just have to believe based on blind faith that it does?

There's genetics which is able to confirm common ancestry through several processes, the one I'm familiar with is ERV codes. Just like a court of law can use genetics to prove that a father is the genetic parent of a child, scientists can make taxonomic classifications based on which retrovirus codes each population has inherited. The map of the family tree made with ERV codes is extremely detailed and matches all the other ways we've also mapped the family tree of life.
For example, if you were intimately familiar with the ERV code situations of birds and reptiles, you would have a demonstration that micro evolution changes eventually added up to macro evolution
Every time we do mapping of the family tree of life like this, we demonstrate that micro evolution adds up to macro. The only way we can understand common ancestry and know we are part of the simian branch of the tree of life is that we've got many, many sources of evidence that show it happened.
Try biologist DonExodus2's video 'why every scientist accepts evolution'
I'd like to say he was a Christian, he was back when he made this video but lost his faith a few years later.

 

[Phillipy]

There has never been a recorded occurrence of macro-evolution in written human history. And no, you can't count mold. When does full-blown macro-evolution happen? When a brand new species comes about where it didn't exist before, that theory will become fact. Not until.

Do you accept and understand the process of speciation?
Because we've seen lots of new species form, and understand how a broad variety of species develops. It's a strawman to demand a 'brand new' species, evolution only predicts that new species will be variations based on the template of what it used to be.
Moreover, our classification system is such that most labels are determined by family, by ancestry - not by morphology. We could breed dogs to be almost identical to mice, and they would still be a 'dog', because they would still be a part of the canine family.
"Contrary to one of creationism's favourite straw men, it is impossible to outgrow your ancestry"
(I'm not an atheist, just scientifically aware, so an evolutionist)

 

[Phillipy]

I think it's interesting that atheists who continually demand proof from Christians that there is a God go entirely on faith concerning a majority of their beliefs in science. What's more, they seem to even deny the obvious, that the earth cannot be proven to be any number of years old, or that macro-evolution has ever actually been observed in complex organisms. The answer always is, "well macro-evolution takes a lot of time, millions of years, in fact." That's a statement one must take on faith since there's no way to prove it's true.

All I'm saying is that atheists argue in the same way Christians do. They just believe that God doesn't exist while Christians believe He does. Both sides involve "belief," and belief is based on faith.

Again, I'm not an atheist, but I feel you are holding down Christians when you associate modern biology with atheism.
Tell your fellow Christians that it's evil and wrong to accept the modern scientific understanding of life and you're being harmful!
Just look into the science, you can even avoid secular science and look at Christian scientists who are speaking in their field of expertise. There's HEAPS of ways to demonstrate and old Earth and old universe, and common ancestry
Don't take Genesis too literal it's clearly allegorical once you start learning about science (and it becomes obvious, it's all about redemption and worship and forgiveness and stuff.)

 

[MatthewMichael]

Do you accept and understand the process of speciation?
Because we've seen lots of new species form, and understand how a broad variety of species develops. It's a strawman to demand a 'brand new' species, evolution only predicts that new species will be variations based on the template of what it used to be.
Moreover, our classification system is such that most labels are determined by family, by ancestry - not by morphology. We could breed dogs to be almost identical to mice, and they would still be a 'dog', because they would still be a part of the canine family.
"Contrary to one of creationism's favourite straw men, it is impossible to outgrow your ancestry"
(I'm not an atheist, just scientifically aware, so an evolutionist)

What you're calling "scientifically aware" sounds more like "spiritually aloof." Evolution (with regard to speciation) and the Bible are mutually exclusive. If you say, "evolution is change over time". Then I say, yea, I'm pretty sure my farts stink worse than they used to, but it's a big jump to say we came from monkeys. Evolution IS the strawman.

The whole idea of evolution (speaking in terms of one kind of creature turning into another) is a baseless attempt to erase God from the equation. Evolution hypothesizes a common ancestor. Scripture verifies this. His name is YHWH.

 

[megaman125]

Well if you accept micro evolution, then you also accept macro by definition. If small changes can happen in a small amount of time, the. Large changes can happen in a large amount of time.

Now do you want evidence of evolution or that macro is the same as micro?

So in other words, no you don't have facts and experiements to back this up. We just have to believe the micro leads to macro because you said so.

Unfortunately, I have no interest in believing your religion about events from "billions of years ago."

Again, I'm not an atheist, but I feel you are holding down Christians when you associate modern biology with atheism.
Tell your fellow Christians that it's evil and wrong to accept the modern scientific understanding of life and you're being harmful!

It's not science. It's just another religion that's falsely labeled as science.

Just look into the science, you can even avoid secular science and look at Christian scientists who are speaking in their field of expertise. There's HEAPS of ways to demonstrate and old Earth and old universe, and common ancestry
Don't take Genesis too literal it's clearly allegorical once you start learning about science (and it becomes obvious, it's all about redemption and worship and forgiveness and stuff.)

So you're now the authority on how Christians have to believe the book of Genesis? That is laughable.

 

[Grey]

So in other words, no you don't have facts and experiements to back this up. We just have to believe the micro leads to macro because you said so.

Unfortunately, I have no interest in believing your religion about events from "billions of years ago."



It's not science. It's just another religion that's falsely labeled as science.




So you're now the authority on how Christians have to believe the book of Genesis? That is laughable.

Atheism has nothing to do with science. You do realize that Phillipy is a Christian right?

 

[Grey]

What you're calling "scientifically aware" sounds more like "spiritually aloof." Evolution (with regard to speciation) and the Bible are mutually exclusive. If you say, "evolution is change over time". Then I say, yea, I'm pretty sure my farts stink worse than they used to, but it's a big jump to say we came from monkeys. Evolution IS the strawman.

The whole idea of evolution (speaking in terms of one kind of creature turning into another) is a baseless attempt to erase God from the equation. Evolution hypothesizes a common ancestor. Scripture verifies this. His name is YHWH.

Like I said we didn't come from monkeys, if you think its baseless then you don't understand the concept fully.

 

[Grey]

There has never been a recorded occurrence of macro-evolution in written human history. And no, you can't count mold. When does full-blown macro-evolution happen? When a brand new species comes about where it didn't exist before, that theory will become fact. Not until. To say this happens over millions of years is a pointless way to support this argument. There is no proof of that either (the time aspect).

I think it's interesting that atheists who continually demand proof from Christians that there is a God go entirely on faith concerning a majority of their beliefs in science. What's more, they seem to even deny the obvious, that the earth cannot be proven to be any number of years old, or that macro-evolution has ever actually been observed in complex organisms. The answer always is, "well macro-evolution takes a lot of time, millions of years, in fact." That's a statement one must take on faith since there's no way to prove it's true.

All I'm saying is that atheists argue in the same way Christians do. They just believe that God doesn't exist while Christians believe He does. Both sides involve "belief," and belief is based on faith.

Once again "Macro-evolution" and "Micro", are not scientific constructs, there is literally no difference, unless by "Macro", you're referring to speciation. Try looking up observed instances of speciation, in particular the fruit fly.

Science is not some sort of faith based way of arguing, if a theory is widely accepted, it is observable and provable. No faith or belief involved.

 

[Pahu]

Pahu, I'm on the atheist's side here because I'm an old Earther and evolutionist (because I'm scientifically aware ).
What's the young Earther apologetic on the distance of galaxies and finite speed of light proving an old universe?
Astronomy iz cool

Good point. One explanation is the evidence for the slowing down of light over the centuries. I am skeptical about that, but here is a link: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Galaxies Are Billions of Light-Years Away, So Isn’t the Universe Billions of Years Old?

Another explanation, which makes more sense to me, is God stretched out the universe, for which there is also evidence:

Universe Stretched​

Was space, along with light emitted by stars, rapidly stretched out soon after creation began? If so, energy would have been added to the universe and starlight during that stretching. Pages 396–401 show that the scientific evidence clearly favors this stretching explanation over the big bang theory, which also claims that space expanded rapidly. Yet, the big bang theory says all this expansion energy, plus all the matter in the universe, was, at the beginning of time, inside a volume much smaller than a pinhead.

At least eleven times, the Bible states that God “stretched out” or “stretches out” the heavens. [See Table 21.] For emphasis, important ideas are often repeated in the Bible. While we may have difficulty visualizing this stretching, we can be confident of its significance.

Table 21. Bible References to Stretching Out of the Heavens

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]Job 9:8[/TD]
[TD]“[God] stretches out the heavens”[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Ps 104:2[/TD]
[TD]“stretching out heaven like a tent curtain”[SUP]1[/SUP][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Is 40:22[/TD]
[TD]“He ... stretches out the heavens like a curtain and spreads them out like a tent”[SUP]1[/SUP][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Is 42:5[/TD]
[TD]“... God the Lord, who created the heavens and stretched them out”[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Is 44:24[/TD]
[TD]“I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself”[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Is 45:12[/TD]
[TD]“It is I who made the earth and created man upon it. I stretched out the heavens with My hands”[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Is 48:13[/TD]
[TD]“Surely My hand founded the earth and My right hand spread out the heavens.”[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Is 51:13[/TD]
[TD]“the Lord your Maker, Who stretched out the heavens and laid the foundations of the earth”[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Jer 10:12[/TD]
[TD]“He has stretched out the heavens”[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Jer 51:15[/TD]
[TD]“He stretched out the heavens”[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Zech 12:1[/TD]
[TD]“the Lord who stretches out the heavens”[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"]The context of each of the above verses deals with creation. Although past and present tenses (stretched and stretches) are expressed in these English translations, Hebrew verbs do not generally convey past, present, or future. Translators must rely on context and other clues to determine verb tense.

Even if we knew the intended Hebrew tense, is the stretching from God’s perspective or man’s? The creation was completed in six days (Exodus 20:11), suggesting that in God’s time the heavens were stretched out during the creation week, perhaps on Day 4. However, in our time, some redshifted light from extreme distances—a consequence of this past stretching—is reaching us now.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

The Hebrew word for stretched is natah. It does not mean an explosion, a flinging out, or the type of stretching that encounters increasing resistance, as with a spring. Natah is more like the effortless reaching out of one’s hand.

Table 22. Comparison of Two Explanations for Expansion of the Universe

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Big Bang[/TD]
[TD]Stretching[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]The universe was once much smaller. It began soon after time began and before all the laws of physics came into operation.[SUP]2[/SUP] Energy and matter appeared out of nothing.[/TD]
[TD]Yes[/TD]
[TD]Yes[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]When did the expansion occur?[/TD]
[TD]Expansion has been going on ever since the big bang, at the instant time began.[/TD]
[TD]Expansion occurred early in the creation week, but not at the instant of creation.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Why is distant light redshifted?[/TD]
[TD]The more distant the light source, the greater the expansion rate and redshift.[/TD]
[TD]The light we see today from very distant objects shows the amount of stretching the light experienced.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Expansion began at almost a mathematical point.[/TD]
[TD]Yes[SUP]3[/SUP][/TD]
[TD]No[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Expansion energy came from within the universe.[/TD]
[TD]Yes[/TD]
[TD]No[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]The initial temperature and density of matter was[/TD]
[TD]nearly infinite[/TD]
[TD]finite[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]All expansion energy was expended[/TD]
[TD]within a tiny fraction (10[SUP]-34[/SUP]) of a second[/TD]
[TD]as the expansion proceeded[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Stars, galaxies, and black holes began forming[/TD]
[TD]after 500,000,000 years, in an expanded universe[/TD]
[TD]before the expansion[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

The stretching explanation, proposed here, has similarities and differences with the big bang theory. Both the big bang and stretching explanations describe a very rapid expansion of the universe, soon after time began, but before all the laws of physics were in place. As one big bang authority stated:

In its standard form, the big bang theory maintains that the universe was born about 15 billion years ago from a cosmological singularity—a state in which the temperature and density are infinitely high. Of course, one cannot really speak in physical terms about these quantities as being infinite. One usually assumes that the current laws of physics did not apply [during the big bang’s rapid expansion]. ... One may wonder, What came before? If space-time did not exist then, how could everything appear from nothing? What arose first: the universe or the laws determining its evolution? Explaining this initial singularity—where and when it all began—still remains the most intractable problem of modern cosmology.[SUP]1[/SUP]

The stretching explanation, in contrast to the standard big bang theory, does not begin with a singularity—an infinitesimal point.[SUP]3[/SUP] Nor does the energy expended in stretching out the heavens come from within the universe or during its first trillionth of a trillionth of a ten-billionth of a second (10[SUP]-34[/SUP] second) or less, as with the big bang theory. Energy flowed into the universe as stretching progressed. According to the big bang theory, stars, galaxies, and black holes began forming after 500,000,000 years. According to the stretching explanation, these bodies were formed (or began) near the beginning of time—early in the creation week. Because matter and starlight occupy space, they were also stretched. You can decide which explanation the following surprising evidence supports.

[continue]