Science Disproves Evolution
- Thread starter Pahu
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
T
I agree this conversation is somewhat repeating itself. I apologize if its time to put this topic to sleep, but I at least don't want people's frustrations to project into others intellectual honesty.
@megaman Explaining anomalies away with supernatural thinking to avoid causality issues with the god hypothesis, appears (not necessarily false, but)as special pleading to claim it a better way of avoiding a causality issue by passing the buck ... I now Pahu is going for the 'if only 3 options, and deduction', even if the logic is sound (I disagree with his appeal to 2nd law of thermo vs infinite) the premise don't swallow.
If I assume supernatural thinking is the only way to remove contradiction (or the appearance of anomalies), a sentient reason still seems no more valid than an unconscious based reason.
@megaman Explaining anomalies away with supernatural thinking to avoid causality issues with the god hypothesis, appears (not necessarily false, but)as special pleading to claim it a better way of avoiding a causality issue by passing the buck ... I now Pahu is going for the 'if only 3 options, and deduction', even if the logic is sound (I disagree with his appeal to 2nd law of thermo vs infinite) the premise don't swallow.
If I assume supernatural thinking is the only way to remove contradiction (or the appearance of anomalies), a sentient reason still seems no more valid than an unconscious based reason.
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 has always existed.
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 has always existed.
L
Thats the problem with evolutionist; pick and choose what they want to believe in order to further the lie of the century.
Which "evolved" first? Jugular veins which provides blood from brain and head tissue, The Superior Vena Cava which receives blood from upper body, The Puilmonary veins which delivers oxygenated blood from the lungs to the heart, The Hepatic Portal vien which delivers nutrient-rich blood from small intestine to liver for processing?
Which "evolved" first? The Renal Vein which carries processed blood away from kidneys; The Inferior Vena Cava which receives blood from all veins below diaphragm, The LLiac veins which carries blood away from the pelvic organs and lower abdominal wall?
Which "evolved" first? The Femoral Vein which carries blood away from the thigh and inner knee;The Carotid Arteris which delivers blood to neck, head and brain; The Ascending Aorta which carries oxygenated blood away from the heart?
Which "evolved" first? The Pulmonary Arteries which delivers oxygen-poor blood from the heart to the lungs; The Coronary Arteries which services the incessantly active cardiac muscle cells of the heart; The Brachial Artery which delivers blood to upper extremities; blood pressure measured here; The Renal artery which delivers blood to kidneys, where its volume, composition are adjusted.
Which "evolved" first? The Abdominal aorta, which delivers blood to arteries leading to the digestive tract, kidneys, pelvic organs, and lower extremities; The LLiac arteries which delivers blood to pelvic organs and lower abdominal wall, The Femoral artery which delivers blood to the thigh and inner knee.
Blood vessels are multi-layered, muscular tubes that carry blood to and from all parts of the body, which consists of Arteries, Capillaries, and Veins . How did "evolution" plan the systemic and pulmonary circuitry into known pathways from portal and renal circuits to interact with the other major organs?
The layers wrapping blood vessels are the Tunica externa, which is the outermost layer composed of connective tissue. The Tunica media, the middle layer, is composed of smooth muscle which has variable amounts of elastic fibers, and the Tunica interna, which is the innermost layer, and it is composed of squamous epithelium and fibers composed of elastic. These layers are interwoven and overlapping, how could they have "evolved" one at a time by random mutations and natural selections? AND also how could one work without the other?
How could random chance and natural selection forces produce something as highly integrated as a kidney nephron and a capillary network in an intestinal villus?
there is a greater chance of a tornado blowing through a junkyard and assembling a 747 Jumbo jet., than for the formation of even one interwoven body part from (evolution).
could be why many scientist today are referring to evolution as a myth.
G
Actually it was an eighteenth century theory.
Your still using that word, random again.
You indeed ask the hardest questions and thats good. Though I lack the in detailed medical vocabulary to explain it well, here's some links to help you understand, I've given it a read, quite good. Sorry I couldn't condense it all but once you look you'll know that it would take me days to explain it all.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC337097/pdf/thij00018-0020.pdf ventricle evolution
Evolution of blood cells. [Ann Immunol (Paris). 1976 Nov-Dec] - PubMed - NCBI blood cell evolution
and cardiac chamber formation Cardiac Chamber Formation: Development, Genes, and Evolution
by many scientists do you mean a shrinking minority?
Your still using that word, random again.
You indeed ask the hardest questions and thats good. Though I lack the in detailed medical vocabulary to explain it well, here's some links to help you understand, I've given it a read, quite good. Sorry I couldn't condense it all but once you look you'll know that it would take me days to explain it all.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC337097/pdf/thij00018-0020.pdf ventricle evolution
Evolution of blood cells. [Ann Immunol (Paris). 1976 Nov-Dec] - PubMed - NCBI blood cell evolution
and cardiac chamber formation Cardiac Chamber Formation: Development, Genes, and Evolution
by many scientists do you mean a shrinking minority?
I dont know why people assume the laws of the UNIVERSE were there before the UNIVERSE. That in itself is a malformed statement.
According to your arguement, god also needs a creator. If you then say that a god doesn't need a creator, then you're doing 2 things:
- committing a special pleading fallacy
- admitting that some things can exist uncreated, meaning the universe doesn't even need a god.
Even if there must hav been a god, you still have to demonstrate that it's the christian god and that he created the heavens and the earth
According to your arguement, god also needs a creator. If you then say that a god doesn't need a creator, then you're doing 2 things:
- committing a special pleading fallacy
- admitting that some things can exist uncreated, meaning the universe doesn't even need a god.
Even if there must hav been a god, you still have to demonstrate that it's the christian god and that he created the heavens and the earth
L
goodness gracious. simple reply that some just cant seem to understand; similarities prove nothing but similarities; it DOES NOT prove that one evolved from another. Speculation is NOT a science. We are similar in many ways because of a common designer. Perhaps we should do away with Engineering in all the universities since nothing is created or designed; just let everything in life evolve. same logic.
For evolution to be so prevalent and established in society and taught in schools as proven fact, one wonders why the writers of evolution use such words as these: (taken from articles on evolution) presumably...............debated...........Some anthropologist believe.......theorized......... appears to have been ..................may have........ probably.......... perhaps............ unlikely..............It is believed.............. suggest............. It is likely............ suggested............. continue to believe..................most believe......many experts consider.......... may represent......... suggesting that.......Does this sound like proven facts?????....
In fact, Darwin used the phrase "we may well suppose" over 800 times in his "novel", The Origins of the Species".
A theory that claims to be responsible for everything that exists, and does not even have a mechanism, is weak indeed.
A mathematical formulation of an observation should not be confused with actual proof; however taxonomic definitions of the created kind are overtly axiomatic. Real science is in the proven laboratory; not drawings in books. Observed variations in species appear to have limits. It is tempting to use this fact to show that there are created kinds, and that variation is only within the limits of such "kinds."
L
It could very easily be explained away:
all religions are not the same nor do they lead to the same God...... In hinduism the world is an illusion....... in christianity it is real......the hindu brahman is anything but the biblical yahweh....... in islam the incarnation is blasphemy.......in christianity it is central, while allah and jehovah are literally worlds apart......buddhism is founded upon the denial of personality......while christianity is founded upon the assertion of Gods personality- and on it goes.
however, in every textbook you will read: first came the big bang, then came the swirling slime, then came the molecules, then came the...... on and on and on.... thats what all the text books claim.
its that simple.
Since the first cells formed from compounds in the environment, how did the cells develop the information to make those compounds and then assemble them into complex structures?
so according to your logic..... If i swat a mosquito, how long will it take for the chemicals of that mosquito to come back together and it be alive again? I mean all the chemicals for life are there, they are just disorganized..
N
Actually the fossil record is something the Christian has as proof, that evolution is a lie. Transition of animals plants, , evolution is not found in the fossil record. That is a good thing, because it shows that nothing has changed, things can die off, but everything remains the same, as the day they were created. We even have things that have not died off in many millions of years, and are alive today, and also found in the fossil record, and show no change.
G
Similarities strongly imply that something may genetically be related. Not to mention its a theory. If you think scientists are just declaring evolution because two things look a like then you don't understand the genetic aspect.
Without a mechanism? Wrong. Beneficial mutations and natural selection
G
I really don't know what to say? Read more science books? Science has progressed a long way since you were in school. You might as well be saying sand and dirt are the same, they just aren't. You don't understand either of the concepts if you claim they are the same.
The compounds, as observed in laboratory conditions, would synthesize into monomers and later polymers, the word complex is a relative red herring, the earliest organisms were very very simple. How did they know to do this? Likely they didn't, but if you have millions upon billions of these floating around interacting with each other in symbiotic ways -- not necessarily instantaneously becoming a cell, but pieces of the puzzle slowly coming together, keep in mind perhaps trillions of times interactions weren't beneficial. But over the course of millions of years the polymers would combine into something that would allow them to live and reproduce the longest, you could almost say survival of the fittest.
A complete strawman, no not at all, although chemical reactions are going on in the mosquito, the actual dead body of the mosquito is rapidly degrading, you already have micro-bacteria inside and outside of the mosquito, so theres life, coming from existing life. The mosquitos cells quickly die as the central control system can no longer get oxygen or nutrients to them, and the external and internal micro-bacteria will eat up any of the mosquitoes beneficial nutrients still there.
The compounds, as observed in laboratory conditions, would synthesize into monomers and later polymers, the word complex is a relative red herring, the earliest organisms were very very simple. How did they know to do this? Likely they didn't, but if you have millions upon billions of these floating around interacting with each other in symbiotic ways -- not necessarily instantaneously becoming a cell, but pieces of the puzzle slowly coming together, keep in mind perhaps trillions of times interactions weren't beneficial. But over the course of millions of years the polymers would combine into something that would allow them to live and reproduce the longest, you could almost say survival of the fittest.
A complete strawman, no not at all, although chemical reactions are going on in the mosquito, the actual dead body of the mosquito is rapidly degrading, you already have micro-bacteria inside and outside of the mosquito, so theres life, coming from existing life. The mosquitos cells quickly die as the central control system can no longer get oxygen or nutrients to them, and the external and internal micro-bacteria will eat up any of the mosquitoes beneficial nutrients still there.
G
thank you for playing and try again next time!
CC200: Transitional fossils - list of transitional and explanation
even more List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also read a book on the actual fossil record, perhaps by an actual anthropologist or paleontologist, not a smoke and mirrors pseudo-scientific creation "scientist'
Fossil Gaps 3
Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum (Natural History), was asked by Luther D. Sunderland why no evolutionary transitions were included in Dr. Patterson’s recent book, Evolution. In a personal letter, Patterson said:
“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be asked to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say that there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.” Copy of letter, dated 10 April 1979, from Patterson to Sunderland.
[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
G
Hey Pahu are you a miner? Perhaps a quote miner? If you had actually read the book he wrote Patterson said,
"In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . ."
The quote you gave was referring to Patterson expressing doubt if you can with absolute certainty say that a species has direct ancestral linage to another or if it is merely a side-branch.
Quote mining is an extremely common creationist tool.
More on the Patterson book/letter Patterson Misquoted: A Tale of Two 'Cites'
More on creationist quote mining Quote Mine Project: "Large Gaps"
"In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes. . ."
The quote you gave was referring to Patterson expressing doubt if you can with absolute certainty say that a species has direct ancestral linage to another or if it is merely a side-branch.
Quote mining is an extremely common creationist tool.
More on the Patterson book/letter Patterson Misquoted: A Tale of Two 'Cites'
More on creationist quote mining Quote Mine Project: "Large Gaps"