Science Disproves Evolution

[ddallen]

But then how is it possible that our mental capacity is so much higher, and the only way we can get a monkey with a higher mental capacity is by exposing them to humans. But......wait......if they share a common ancestor....Then dolphins are related to fish and invertebrates cuz they share similar qualities....I don't know man out sounds weird to me

Dolphins are not related to fish -they are mammals. There is no reason for a monkey, in its natural habitat, it have a human equivalent mental capacity. If you don't need it you don't develop it. Natural law. Evolution is about how a species adapts to its environment - environmental pressure forces adaption. Our ancestors left the trees and so the need for grasping feet became obsolete - we lost that ability - which monkeys still have.

 

[Bryancampbell]

Dolphins are not related to fish -they are mammals. There is no reason for a monkey, in its natural habitat, it have a human equivalent mental capacity. If you don't need it you don't develop it. Natural law. Evolution is about how a species adapts to its environment - environmental pressure forces adaption. Our ancestors left the trees and so the need for grasping feet became obsolete - we lost that ability - which monkeys still have.

That's what I'm saying dude, dolphins are nothing close to fish but the theory of evolution seems the exact same thing with common ancestors. I believe that human and animal learn to adapt to environment but I don't know about having a common ancestor cuz primates of all kind are still classified separate from us, just as dolphins are separate from invertebrates....see

 

[ddallen]

That's what I'm saying dude, dolphins are nothing close to fish but the theory of evolution seems the exact same thing with common ancestors. I believe that human and animal learn to adapt to environment but I don't know about having a common ancestor cuz primates of all kind are still classified separate from us, just as dolphins are separate from invertebrates....see

I am going to apologies as I don't fully understand your question or statement so may not be replying correctly.
Are you wondering why dolphin and fish superficially resemble each other though are completely different species? This is because the environment in which they live forces a particular body adaptation upon them. To move through a liquid efficiently you need a streamlined body.
Monkeys and us separated a long time ago and both took different evolutionary paths leading to different species. To be exact - humans are also classified as primates.

 

[Pahu]

Fossil Gaps 5
​

“This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate. A fortiori, it is also true of the classes, themselves, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants.” George Gaylord Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1944), p. 107.

“...the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution. In other words, there are not enough intermediates. There are very few cases where one can find a gradual transition from one species to another and very few cases where one can look at a part of the fossil record and actually see that organisms were improving in the sense of becoming better adapted.” Ibid., p. 23.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]

 

[megaman125]

Common ansestry makes no sense. Let's say life started with a single living cell, as the evolutionists would have us believe. Ok, so this cell was not a dog, not a cat, and not a bat. This means that, according to evolution, in order for animals to evole into dogs, cats, and bats, they came from something that isn't a dog, cat, or bat. In other words, non-dogs evolved into dogs, non-cats evolved into cats, and non-bats evolved into bats. If you believe in common ancestry and that life started with a single living cell and evolved from there, you can't get around this.

The issue is that this belief of going from non-dogs to dogs has absolutely no scientific basis. There is no test that has confirmed this, no evidence to even suggest such a thing is possible.

Furthermore, if we look towards the future on this doctrine, then this would be the conclusion. If non-dogs evolved into dogs, non-cats evolved into cats, and non-bats evolved into bats, then dogs should be evolving into something that isn't a dog, cats should be evolving into something that isn't a cat, and bats should be evolving into something that isn't a bat. The whole thing is nonsensical and ludicrous.

 

[ddallen]

Common ansestry makes no sense. Let's say life started with a single living cell, as the evolutionists would have us believe. Ok, so this cell was not a dog, not a cat, and not a bat. This means that, according to evolution, in order for animals to evole into dogs, cats, and bats, they came from something that isn't a dog, cat, or bat. In other words, non-dogs evolved into dogs, non-cats evolved into cats, and non-bats evolved into bats. If you believe in common ancestry and that life started with a single living cell and evolved from there, you can't get around this.

The issue is that this belief of going from non-dogs to dogs has absolutely no scientific basis. There is no test that has confirmed this, no evidence to even suggest such a thing is possible.

Furthermore, if we look towards the future on this doctrine, then this would be the conclusion. If non-dogs evolved into dogs, non-cats evolved into cats, and non-bats evolved into bats, then dogs should be evolving into something that isn't a dog, cats should be evolving into something that isn't a cat, and bats should be evolving into something that isn't a bat. The whole thing is nonsensical and ludicrous.

You are misunderstanding what evolution is. It is not a straight line where everything continues to evolve constantly into something else. Evolution occurs when there is an environmental change that forces adaptation. Will cats evolve into something else in millions of years - maybe - it is equally likely that at some point cats will go extinct. Look at the shark - it hasn't changed in the past 100 million years - why? because it is perfect for the ecological niche it resides in. It is an apex predator and has no need for further evolution.

 

[Pahu]

Quantum mechanics proves that particles can and do pop into existence randomly across the know universe - it is perfectly natural ​

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.

IS CREATION BY GOD RATIONAL?

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.

But the philosopher (and New Testament scholar) William Lane Craig, in a useful critique of Davies, pointed out that Davies is deficient in philosophical knowledge. Philosophers have long discussed the notion of simultaneous causation. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) gave the example of a weight resting on a cushion simultaneously causing a depression in it. Craig says:

“The first moment of time is the moment of God's creative act and of creation's simultaneous coming to be.”

Some skeptics claim that all this analysis is tentative, because that is the nature of science. So this can’t be used to prove creation by God. Of course, skeptics can't have it both ways: saying that the Bible is wrong because science has proved it so, but if science appears consistent with the Bible, then well, science is tentative anyway.

A FINAL THOUGHT

The Bible informs us that time is a dimension that God created, into which man was subjected. It even tells us that one day time will no longer exist. That will be called "eternity." God Himself dwells outside of the dimension He created (2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2). He dwells in eternity and is not subject to time. God spoke history before it came into being. He can move through time as a man flips through a history book.

Because we live in the dimension of time, it is impossible for us to fully understand anything that does not have a beginning and an end. Simply accept that fact, and believe the concept of God's eternal nature the same way you believe the concept of space having no beginning and end—by faith—even though such thoughts put a strain on our distinctly insufficient cerebrum.


Who created God? • ChristianAnswers.Net

 

[Pahu]

9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).Stated by Pasteur - disproved by Miller and Urey

The experiments by Harold Urey and Stanley Miller, conducted in 1953, are often mentioned as showing that the “building blocks of life” can be produced in the laboratory. Not mentioned in these misleading claims are:

1) The protein “building blocks” are merely the simpler amino acids. The most complex amino acids have never been produced in the laboratory. (In 2011, several more amino acids were found in Miller’s old experimental materials, but the more complex amino acids found in life were still missing. See Eric T. Parker et al., “Primordial Synthesis of Amines and Amino Acids in a 1958 Miller H[SUB]2[/SUB]S-Rich Spark Discharge Experiment,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 21 March 2011, pp. 1–6.)
2) Most products of these chemical reactions are poisonous to life.
3) Amino acids are as far from a living cell as bricks are from the Empire State Building.
4) Half the amino acids produced have the wrong handedness.
5) Urey and Miller’s experiments contained a reducing atmosphere, which the early earth did not have, and components, such as a trap, that do not exist in nature. (A trap quickly removes chemical products from the destructive energy sources that make the products.)

In fact, most of what was produced in the Miller-Urey experiments was a sludge of simple organic chemicals that are not found in living organisms. Only about 2% was amino acids. Of this 2%, 95% was the simplest amino acid of all, glycine.

Chemist Robert Shapiro describes the widespread current acceptance of the results of Miller and Urey's experiments as “mythology rather than science.”

Oxygen is deadly to the Miller-Urey experiments: the 'building blocks of life' simply would not have formed in an oxygen-rich atmosphere. Oxygen reacts with methane to form carbon dioxide and water, and with ammonia to form nitrogen oxides and water. If you introduce oxygen into the apparatus, along with methane and hydrogen, and then put a spark through it, you do not get amino acids: you get an explosion.

But scientists still often claim that the atmosphere of the early Earth did not contain oxygen. When asked why, they reply that oxygen-less conditions are needed for life to develop. Now, call me naive, but in any other circumstances I think we would say this was arguing in a circle.

“All nucleotides synthesized biologically today are righthanded. Yet on the primitive earth, equal numbers of right- and left-handed nucleotides would have been present. When we put equal numbers of both kinds of nucleotides in our reaction mixtures, copying was inhibited.” Leslie E. Orgel, “The Origin of Life on the Earth,” Scientific American, Vol. 271, October 1994, p. 82.

“Many researchers have attempted to find plausible natural conditions under which [left-handed] L-amino acids would preferentially accumulate over their [right-handed] D-counterparts, but all such attempts have failed. Until this crucial problem is solved, no one can say that we have found a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. Instead, these isomer preferences point to biochemical creation.” Kenyon, p. A-23.

All of the above show why intelligence and design are necessary to produce even the simplest components of life.

Further Reading: Why the Miller–Urey Research Argues Against Abiogenesis - Answers in Genesis

From time to time, Richard Dawkins says wise and insightful things. Seriously -- no sarcasm intended. Among his wisest statements is the following observation from The Blind Watchmaker (italics in the original):

"It is true that there are quite a number of ways of making a living -- flying, swimming, swinging through the trees, and so on. But, however many ways there may be of being alive, it is certain that there are vastly more ways of being dead, or rather not alive. You may throw cells together at random, over and over again for a billion years, and not once will you get a conglomeration that flies or swims or burrows or runs, or does anything, even badly, that could remotely be construed as working to keep itself alive." (1987, p. 9)

 

[Pahu]

Why, if science cannot answer a question do people automatically assume a supernatural cause?

The logic is if the cause is not natural, it must be supernatural.

If, as the argument goes, there must be a creator as everything has to be created - who created the creator? it is a self repeating endless progression?

In logic, if you begin with an erroneous premise, you end with an erroneous conclusion, and vise versa.

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.

Seeing things from God’s infinite perspective is probably as hard for us as it is for a dog or cat to understand what is on this printed page. If God is infinite and we are His finite creations, our limited understanding and perspective should not surprise us.

How else do we know that time began? The Bible is the most widely read book of all time. Within it, the most read page is probably the first page of Genesis. The first three words on that page

“In the beginning ...”

are probably the best-known group of three words of all time—the single, most widely proclaimed idea. By reading the fourth word, one sees that God was there at the beginning.

Another key insight comes from John 1:1.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

Again, there was a beginning; we are also told Who was there when time began. Verses 1:2, 3, and 14 clarify these profound events even more.


[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ315.html]

 

[Grey]

Common ansestry makes no sense. Let's say life started with a single living cell, as the evolutionists would have us believe. Ok, so this cell was not a dog, not a cat, and not a bat. This means that, according to evolution, in order for animals to evole into dogs, cats, and bats, they came from something that isn't a dog, cat, or bat. In other words, non-dogs evolved into dogs, non-cats evolved into cats, and non-bats evolved into bats. If you believe in common ancestry and that life started with a single living cell and evolved from there, you can't get around this. (????)

The issue is that this belief of going from non-dogs to dogs has absolutely no scientific basis. There is no test that has confirmed this, no evidence to even suggest such a thing is possible.

Furthermore, if we look towards the future on this doctrine, then this would be the conclusion. If non-dogs evolved into dogs, non-cats evolved into cats, and non-bats evolved into bats, then dogs should be evolving into something that isn't a dog, cats should be evolving into something that isn't a cat, and bats should be evolving into something that isn't a bat. The whole thing is nonsensical and ludicrous.

Abiogenesis =/= evolution. Wolves going to dogs, well we know that dogs are descended from wolves so that point is pretty much void. The same goes with cats, I mean you should know that domesticated cats are simply tamed wild felines. Everything is evolving right now, it will likely be a while before you see a large visible change from what is visible now, but the fittest of every species are surviving better than the non-fit and will pass those genes on.

 

[Pahu]

Conclusion - the primordial atom existed - it expanded causing the universe, as we know it, to exist

That is evidence free speculation.

 

[Grey]

That is evidence free speculation.

Much like your own?

 

[Pahu]

Humans did not evolve from monkeys - humans and monkeys both evolved from a common ancestor

More evidence free speculation!

 

[Pahu]

Dolphins are not related to fish -they are mammals. There is no reason for a monkey, in its natural habitat, it have a human equivalent mental capacity. If you don't need it you don't develop it. Natural law. Evolution is about how a species adapts to its environment - environmental pressure forces adaption. Our ancestors left the trees and so the need for grasping feet became obsolete - we lost that ability - which monkeys still have.

And yet more evidence free speculation!

 

[Grey]

And yet more evidence free speculation!

So dolphins are fish in your opinion?

 

[Grey]

More evidence free speculation!

rigghhht

 

[Pahu]

Monkeys and us separated a long time ago and both took different evolutionary paths leading to different species. To be exact - humans are also classified as primates.

More evidence free speculation!

 

[Grey]

More evidence free speculation!

Not according to the genes.

 

[Pahu]

View attachment 53162
rigghhht

A collection of skulls is only a collection of skulls. Where is the evidence of evolution?

 

[megaman125]

You are misunderstanding what evolution is.

Oh look, the typical response evolutionists give when their evolutionary beliefs are shown to have major holes. Just resort to mocking the non-evolutionists by saying "you don't understand what evolution is," and therefore evolutionists are right.

Abiogenesis =/= evolution.

And I didn't say anything contrary to that. My post was starting with the single living cell being there. *sigh* once again I find myself explaining the basics of the conversation to those who can't follow along.

Wolves going to dogs, well we know that dogs are descended from wolves so that point is pretty much void. The same goes with cats, I mean you should know that domesticated cats are simply tamed wild felines. Everything is evolving right now, it will likely be a while before you see a large visible change from what is visible now, but the fittest of every species are surviving better than the non-fit and will pass those genes on.

I wasn't talking about wolves into dogs. I was talking about the first single living cell into dogs, the single cell into cats. That's the common ancestry the evolutionists purport, but yet when they'll called out on it, they always try to change the subject, all the while trying to avoid the holes that just got blown into their religion.