|
|
Post by Ariete is a Russian Alcoholic on Jan 14, 2021 22:41:44 GMT -5
This thread gave me a colorectal aneurysm.
|
|
|
|
Post by snj90 on Apr 1, 2021 9:50:52 GMT -5
Now obviously wings did manage to evolve in some way I don't know about, or else there wouldn't be birds. To me, it is quite obvious that wings were designed, and did not "evolve." But it's good for you to question these things. Every now and then, when I believed as you do, I would also have sudden doubts about how absurd the idea is that all life in all its complexity just "evolved" from slime.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mörön on Apr 1, 2021 11:33:53 GMT -5
Now obviously wings did manage to evolve in some way I don't know about, or else there wouldn't be birds. To me, it is quite obvious that wings were designed, and did not "evolve." But it's good for you to question these things. Every now and then, when I believed as you do, I would also have sudden doubts about how absurd the idea is that all life in all its complexity just "evolved" from slime.
I agree there is a certain je ne sais quoi with evolution in animals (and plants), but I am hesitant to resort to creationism (whether that is the Christian god or whichever is beside the point). I think people just can't fathom the timescales involved. One million years, for example, is not a long time for something to develop, but that is an unimaginably long time from the human perspective. When looking at dinosaur fossils, it's pretty clear birds came from the survivors of whatever cataclysm occurred. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microraptor |
|
|
|
Post by snj90 on Apr 1, 2021 12:48:04 GMT -5
To me, it is quite obvious that wings were designed, and did not "evolve." But it's good for you to question these things. Every now and then, when I believed as you do, I would also have sudden doubts about how absurd the idea is that all life in all its complexity just "evolved" from slime.
I agree there is a certain je ne sais quoi with evolution in animals (and plants), but I am hesitant to resort to creationism (whether that is the Christian god or whichever is beside the point). I think people just can't fathom the timescales involved. One million years, for example, is not a long time for something to develop, but that is an unimaginably long time from the human perspective. When looking at dinosaur fossils, it's pretty clear birds came from the survivors of whatever cataclysm occurred. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microraptor
I disagree about the age of the earth, but the proposed timescale of an old earth is far more fathomable than the probabilities involved in the origin of life.
"... on average, you would need to construct 10^164 chains of amino acids 150 units long to expect to find one that is useful."
For the sake of comparison, 10^80 (one followed by 80 zeroes) is the approximate number of atoms in the universe.
And that's just for a functional protein, not even a functional cell.
"A functioning cell contains a complex noncovalent interactive system. Nobody knows how a cell emerges from its molecular components. An interactome is the set of molecular interactions in a given cell. Interactions may be between proteins, genes, or molecules. Information is transferred within the cell through these molecular interactions. Electrostatic potentials permit information to flow through noncovalent molecular arrays, but these arrays require specific orientation. The interactome defines these intermolecular orientations, alignments that are unattainable through random mixing.
Peter Tompa and George Rose have calculated that if one considered only protein combinations in a single yeast cell, the result would be an estimated 10^79,000,000,000 combinations."
That's a one followed by 79 billion zeroes!
|
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on Apr 1, 2021 15:17:14 GMT -5
I disagree about the age of the earth, but the proposed timescale of an old earth is far more fathomable than the probabilities involved in the origin of life.
There's nothing to disagree on. The Earth is 4.54 billion years old.
|
|
|
|
Post by snj90 on Apr 1, 2021 15:33:43 GMT -5
I disagree about the age of the earth, but the proposed timescale of an old earth is far more fathomable than the probabilities involved in the origin of life.
There's nothing to disagree on. The Earth is 4.54 billion years old.
There's plenty of evidence to dispute the age of the earth claimed by evolution. This page presents 101 proofs that the earth is thousands, not billions, of years old:
|
|
|
|
Post by Mörön on Apr 1, 2021 15:40:12 GMT -5
There's nothing to disagree on. The Earth is 4.54 billion years old.
There's plenty of evidence to dispute the age of the earth claimed by evolution. This page present 101 proofs that the earth is thousands, not billions, of years old:
It's not based on evolution. It's based on geology; geochemistry to be precise. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on Apr 1, 2021 16:05:22 GMT -5
There's plenty of evidence to dispute the age of the earth claimed by evolution. This page presents 101 proofs that the earth is thousands, not billions, of years old:
1 >10,000
1.1 Thermoluminescence dating: 10,000
1.2 Dendrochronology: 11,700
1.3 Linguistics: 14,000
1.4 Oxidizable carbon ratio dating: 20,000
1.5 Widmanstatten patterns: >57,300
2 >100,000
2.1 Mitochondrial Eve: 99,000
2.2 Lack of DNA in fossils: 100,000
2.3 Ice layering: 145,000
2.4 Permafrost: 225,000
2.5 Rock varnish: 250,000
2.6 Weathering rinds: 300,000
2.7 Y-chromosomal Adam: 150,000-200,000
2.8 Fission track dating: 700,000
3 >1,000,000
3.1 Relativistic jets: >1,000,000
3.2 Space weathering: >1,000,000
3.3 Petrified wood: >1,000,000
3.4 Naica megacrystals: >1,000,000
3.5 Cosmogenic nuclide dating: >1,000,000
3.6 Iron-manganese nodule growth: >1,000,000
3.7 Amino acid racemization: >1,000,000
3.8 Stalactites: >1,000,000
3.9 Geomagnetic reversals: 5,000,000
3.10 Erosion: 6,000,000
4 >10,000,000
4.1 Milankovitch astronomical cycles: 23,030,000
4.2 Sedimentary varves: 20,000,000
4.3 Coral: 25,000,000
4.4 Seabed plankton layering: 56,000,000
4.5 Baptistina asteroid family: 80,000,000
5 >100,000,000
5.1 Continental drift: 200,000,000
5.2 Nitrogen impurities in natural diamonds: 200,000,000
5.3 Impact craters: >313,000,000
5.4 Rotation of the Earth: 620,000,000
6 >1,000,000,000
6.1 Helioseismology: 4,460,000,000
6.2 Radioactive decay: 4,540,000,000
6.3 Recession of the Moon: 4,500,000,000
6.4 Gyrochronology: 4,600,000,000
6.5 Globular clusters: >10,000,000,000
6.6 Distant starlight: 13,700,000,000
6.7 CMB and Extreme Redshift: 13,800,000,000
Should you desire to believe in Young-Earth Creationism, you must willfully ignore or deny:
Astronomy:
Astrophysics: Astrophysics is essential to determination of the speed of light which generates the starlight problem. In order for the universe outside of the Earth to be seen, either the speed of light has to be changing or light had to have started en route to Earth already. The former is not supported by modern science or any observational evidence, and even semi-coherent theories regarding an anisotropic synchrony convention or c-decay can't account for the massive change needed. The latter is a case of special pleading and can lead to Last Thursdayism.
Cosmology: The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) — a background level of very cold, low frequency radiation, billions of light-years away, predicted to exist by the "Big Bang" model and discovered and researched intensively throughout the latter half of the 20th century.
Physics:
Newtonian mechanics: Gravity (as described by Newton) itself contradicts YEC belief.[68][note 5]
Nuclear physics: the decay rates of certain isotopes are known and are used in radiometric dating. YEC beliefs often require these well-established rates to change by, for lack of a better term, stuff.
Electromagnetism: Since one can derive the speed of light from the vacuum permeabilityWikipedia and the vacuum permittivityWikipedia, unpredictable changes in speed of light pretty much renders the predictive power of electromagnetism nil.
Quantum Fluctuations: C-decay requires such a high vacuum energy that space itself would be ingloriously unstable, leading to the formation of vacuum decay bubbles. An energy of 10^5 ergs per cubic meter is far above the calculated vacuum metastability limit for vacuum decay.
Transport phenomena
Fluid mechanics (momentum transfer) is pretty much incompatible with the idea of a global flood.
Heat transfer is pretty much incompatible with all the variations of ideas that require water under earth's crusts, or in case of radiative heat transfer, White hole cosmology and anything that involves a different speed of light or radioactive material giving radiation at a significantly different rate.
Mass transfer would also have to be ignored, due to phenomena such as diffusion of impurities or crystal/sediment formation.
Chemistry:
Reaction kinetics: The rate that amino acids undergo racemisation (conversion to an equal mix of stereoisomers) is a well-known process that occurs at a specific rate. It can therefore be used as a dating method and has shown biological molecules to be far older than 6,000 years.
Thermodynamics: All the laws of thermodynamics are violated in a creation event.
Materials science: Tribology is the study of wear and friction in materials in relative motion to each other. The well-documented rates and mechanisms of wear and erosion preclude the rapid formation of geological features, such as the Grand Canyon, as claimed by young Earth creationists.
Biology:
Botany: Dendrochronology, which is accurate to a handful of years, has dated trees that go back ten thousand years at least, long before most YEC proponents say the universe even existed.[note 6]
Evolution: For obvious reasons. This throws out morphology, zoology, ecology, and comparative anatomy. (Let's not even discuss nylon-eating bacteria.Wikipedia)
Genetics: the discovery of the genetic code was one of the biggest confirmations of evolution by natural selection and went a great way to explain the empirical observations such as Mendel's Laws. The supposed dichotomy between "macroevolution" and "microevolution" can only exist if there are two forms of DNA, one that mutates and another that is immune from mutation — otherwise there is no barrier between the two. This is not borne out in observations.
Medicine:
Immunology: Disease-causing bacteria and viruses mutate and become immune to our attempts at destroying or immunizing against them. This is one of the more powerful and very much real observations of evolution that supposedly doesn't happen in the YEC belief-system. See MRSA drug resistance and Richard Lenski's lab results.
Psychology/Neuroscience: Humans and other animals use an unnecessarily slow memory-recall procedure. This would not occur if humans were intelligently designed (useful explanation here[69]).[70]
Mathematics: Trigonometry is incompatible with c-decay, one of a very few explanations for the starlight problem.[71]
Computer Science
Cellular automata: Self-reproducing molecules are cellular automata which combine themselves using a few simple rules to cause emergent properties. If cellular automata (which are Turing-complete) are ignored, the entire corpus of computability theory has to be ignored.
Geology:
Geomorphology — uplift causes mountain ranges to form, a process that can be observed to occur at a fixed rate.
Plate tectonics: Tectonic plates are known to move at a certain rate, postulating that some pieces of land were one connected at some point — something observed and confirmed in the fossil record.
Petrology: Rocks and crystal structures take considerably longer than 6,000 years to form.
Stratigraphy: Rock layering through sedimentation takes a long damn time. Although creationists bizarrely like to attribute this to the Global Flood, a single event cannot explain layering.
Fossil fuel: The biomass must be trapped underground for hundreds of thousands to millions of years to transform into coal and oil.[72][73]
Palaeontology — self explanatory. There is a massive amount of evidence from palaeontology that only works and makes sense given a very, very old Earth.
MetrologyWikipedia — Modern measurement defines distance based on the speed of light and time based on radioactive decay. If radiometric dating and starlight problem are to be said invalid, one might as well throw out these definitions.
Humanities: Okay, we'll be honest. These don't need to be included. But for anyone who chooses not to trust hard science anyway: archaeology, anthropology, history, philosophy, philosophy of science, and linguistics[note 7] each assumes, or actually requires, more than six thousand years of human existence. Proto-writing appears to have started on its way to evolving into writing systems by the 7th or 6th millennium BCE.[74][75] Historians can and have identified kings operating more than than 6,000 years ago; archeologists document artifacts hundreds of thousands of years old; science has developed since humans started talking to each other.
Evidence for a young earth:
How did Young Earth Creationists decide that the Universe was only 6,000 years old? A 17th century monk added up the obviously dubious ages of generations of fictional characters from his favorite folklore, and from that, he determined that the world was magically created on October 23rd, 4004 BCE.
Checkmate, theists.
|
|
|
|
Post by snj90 on Apr 1, 2021 16:53:41 GMT -5
There's plenty of evidence to dispute the age of the earth claimed by evolution. This page presents 101 proofs that the earth is thousands, not billions, of years old:
1 >10,000
1.1 Thermoluminescence dating: 10,000
1.2 Dendrochronology: 11,700
1.3 Linguistics: 14,000
1.4 Oxidizable carbon ratio dating: 20,000
1.5 Widmanstatten patterns: >57,300
2 >100,000
2.1 Mitochondrial Eve: 99,000
2.2 Lack of DNA in fossils: 100,000
2.3 Ice layering: 145,000
2.4 Permafrost: 225,000
2.5 Rock varnish: 250,000
2.6 Weathering rinds: 300,000
2.7 Y-chromosomal Adam: 150,000-200,000
2.8 Fission track dating: 700,000
3 >1,000,000
3.1 Relativistic jets: >1,000,000
3.2 Space weathering: >1,000,000
3.3 Petrified wood: >1,000,000
3.4 Naica megacrystals: >1,000,000
3.5 Cosmogenic nuclide dating: >1,000,000
3.6 Iron-manganese nodule growth: >1,000,000
3.7 Amino acid racemization: >1,000,000
3.8 Stalactites: >1,000,000
3.9 Geomagnetic reversals: 5,000,000
3.10 Erosion: 6,000,000
4 >10,000,000
4.1 Milankovitch astronomical cycles: 23,030,000
4.2 Sedimentary varves: 20,000,000
4.3 Coral: 25,000,000
4.4 Seabed plankton layering: 56,000,000
4.5 Baptistina asteroid family: 80,000,000
5 >100,000,000
5.1 Continental drift: 200,000,000
5.2 Nitrogen impurities in natural diamonds: 200,000,000
5.3 Impact craters: >313,000,000
5.4 Rotation of the Earth: 620,000,000
6 >1,000,000,000
6.1 Helioseismology: 4,460,000,000
6.2 Radioactive decay: 4,540,000,000
6.3 Recession of the Moon: 4,500,000,000
6.4 Gyrochronology: 4,600,000,000
6.5 Globular clusters: >10,000,000,000
6.6 Distant starlight: 13,700,000,000
6.7 CMB and Extreme Redshift: 13,800,000,000
Should you desire to believe in Young-Earth Creationism, you must willfully ignore or deny:
Astronomy:
Astrophysics: Astrophysics is essential to determination of the speed of light which generates the starlight problem. In order for the universe outside of the Earth to be seen, either the speed of light has to be changing or light had to have started en route to Earth already. The former is not supported by modern science or any observational evidence, and even semi-coherent theories regarding an anisotropic synchrony convention or c-decay can't account for the massive change needed. The latter is a case of special pleading and can lead to Last Thursdayism.
Cosmology: The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) — a background level of very cold, low frequency radiation, billions of light-years away, predicted to exist by the "Big Bang" model and discovered and researched intensively throughout the latter half of the 20th century.
Physics:
Newtonian mechanics: Gravity (as described by Newton) itself contradicts YEC belief.[68][note 5]
Nuclear physics: the decay rates of certain isotopes are known and are used in radiometric dating. YEC beliefs often require these well-established rates to change by, for lack of a better term, stuff.
Electromagnetism: Since one can derive the speed of light from the vacuum permeabilityWikipedia and the vacuum permittivityWikipedia, unpredictable changes in speed of light pretty much renders the predictive power of electromagnetism nil.
Quantum Fluctuations: C-decay requires such a high vacuum energy that space itself would be ingloriously unstable, leading to the formation of vacuum decay bubbles. An energy of 10^5 ergs per cubic meter is far above the calculated vacuum metastability limit for vacuum decay.
Transport phenomena
Fluid mechanics (momentum transfer) is pretty much incompatible with the idea of a global flood.
Heat transfer is pretty much incompatible with all the variations of ideas that require water under earth's crusts, or in case of radiative heat transfer, White hole cosmology and anything that involves a different speed of light or radioactive material giving radiation at a significantly different rate.
Mass transfer would also have to be ignored, due to phenomena such as diffusion of impurities or crystal/sediment formation.
Chemistry:
Reaction kinetics: The rate that amino acids undergo racemisation (conversion to an equal mix of stereoisomers) is a well-known process that occurs at a specific rate. It can therefore be used as a dating method and has shown biological molecules to be far older than 6,000 years.
Thermodynamics: All the laws of thermodynamics are violated in a creation event.
Materials science: Tribology is the study of wear and friction in materials in relative motion to each other. The well-documented rates and mechanisms of wear and erosion preclude the rapid formation of geological features, such as the Grand Canyon, as claimed by young Earth creationists.
Biology:
Botany: Dendrochronology, which is accurate to a handful of years, has dated trees that go back ten thousand years at least, long before most YEC proponents say the universe even existed.[note 6]
Evolution: For obvious reasons. This throws out morphology, zoology, ecology, and comparative anatomy. (Let's not even discuss nylon-eating bacteria.Wikipedia)
Genetics: the discovery of the genetic code was one of the biggest confirmations of evolution by natural selection and went a great way to explain the empirical observations such as Mendel's Laws. The supposed dichotomy between "macroevolution" and "microevolution" can only exist if there are two forms of DNA, one that mutates and another that is immune from mutation — otherwise there is no barrier between the two. This is not borne out in observations.
Medicine:
Immunology: Disease-causing bacteria and viruses mutate and become immune to our attempts at destroying or immunizing against them. This is one of the more powerful and very much real observations of evolution that supposedly doesn't happen in the YEC belief-system. See MRSA drug resistance and Richard Lenski's lab results.
Psychology/Neuroscience: Humans and other animals use an unnecessarily slow memory-recall procedure. This would not occur if humans were intelligently designed (useful explanation here[69]).[70]
Mathematics: Trigonometry is incompatible with c-decay, one of a very few explanations for the starlight problem.[71]
Computer Science
Cellular automata: Self-reproducing molecules are cellular automata which combine themselves using a few simple rules to cause emergent properties. If cellular automata (which are Turing-complete) are ignored, the entire corpus of computability theory has to be ignored.
Geology:
Geomorphology — uplift causes mountain ranges to form, a process that can be observed to occur at a fixed rate.
Plate tectonics: Tectonic plates are known to move at a certain rate, postulating that some pieces of land were one connected at some point — something observed and confirmed in the fossil record.
Petrology: Rocks and crystal structures take considerably longer than 6,000 years to form.
Stratigraphy: Rock layering through sedimentation takes a long damn time. Although creationists bizarrely like to attribute this to the Global Flood, a single event cannot explain layering.
Fossil fuel: The biomass must be trapped underground for hundreds of thousands to millions of years to transform into coal and oil.[72][73]
Palaeontology — self explanatory. There is a massive amount of evidence from palaeontology that only works and makes sense given a very, very old Earth.
MetrologyWikipedia — Modern measurement defines distance based on the speed of light and time based on radioactive decay. If radiometric dating and starlight problem are to be said invalid, one might as well throw out these definitions.
Humanities: Okay, we'll be honest. These don't need to be included. But for anyone who chooses not to trust hard science anyway: archaeology, anthropology, history, philosophy, philosophy of science, and linguistics[note 7] each assumes, or actually requires, more than six thousand years of human existence. Proto-writing appears to have started on its way to evolving into writing systems by the 7th or 6th millennium BCE.[74][75] Historians can and have identified kings operating more than than 6,000 years ago; archeologists document artifacts hundreds of thousands of years old; science has developed since humans started talking to each other.
Evidence for a young earth:
How did Young Earth Creationists decide that the Universe was only 6,000 years old? A 17th century monk added up the obviously dubious ages of generations of fictional characters from his favorite folklore, and from that, he determined that the world was magically created on October 23rd, 4004 BCE.
Checkmate, theists.
So let's look at one the arguments here: ice layering. According to your link, it is considered a reliable method, as only one layer will form each year. Yet, consider the case of an American warplane that crashed in Greenland in 1942. In 1990, it was found 80m deep. In 48 years, there were many hundreds of ice rings that had formed. These are not "annual rings."
And they date the earth at >4.5 billions years based on the recession of the moon? But the speed of recession increases when the moon is closer. As noted in the link I posted,
"Tidal friction causes the moon to recede from the earth at 4 cm per year. It would have been greater in the past when the moon and earth were closer together. The moon and earth would have been in catastrophic proximity (Roche limit) at less than a quarter of their supposed age."
Radioactive dating is commonly propounded as evidence for a young earth. Yet carbon-14 is found in coal, oil, diamonds - which argues against an old age. But other methods, like potassium-argon dating, have been used to produce ages of hundreds of thousands and even millions of years for volcanic eruptions whose timing is known, like 2.8 million years for Mount St Helens in 1986.
There's also quite a problem when you look at the issue of geology, and assume uniformitarian processes. Catastrophic processes are a better explanation, and the global flood explains the rapid deposition of layers. It also explains fossilization, as this occurs by rapid burial, such as what occurred during the flood:
Yeah, clearly that fossil was formed rapidly.
The earth's magnetic field argues strongly against an old earth, since we've been able to measure its rate of decay reliably for 150 years. Extrapolated a mere 20,000 years before present, and the earth would be liquefied.
The solar system offers some excellent evidence against an old earth. The sun has more than 99% of the mass of the solar system and yet accounts for a mere 0.3% of its angular momentum. This violates that law of conservation of angular momentum, if the nebular hypothesis were true. Moreover, the secular model for the formation of the solar system can't explain the existence of water on earth, because according to the model, it cannot have formed. So evolutionists use the ad hoc explanation that all the water came here extraterrestrially via comets. Yet comets have the wrong deuterium-to-water ratio to allow for this. And you can't even have comets in the solar system if it were billions of years old, since they are degraded too quickly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on Apr 1, 2021 17:19:40 GMT -5
Even if a god did create the world, it's definitely not the Christian god. All Abrahamic religions are new-age hippie communist modern inventions - with Islam being barely 1400 years old - so in that the creation was by a earthdiver, world three, egg or some other proper old ancient myth. Maybe the ancient Sumerian and Egyptian religions can provide some valuable insight.
|
|
|
|
Post by snj90 on Apr 1, 2021 17:29:26 GMT -5
Even if a god did create the world, it's definitely not the Christian god. All Abrahamic religions are new-age hippie communist modern inventions - with Islam being barely 1400 years old - so in that the creation was by a earthdiver, world three, egg or some other proper old ancient myth. Maybe the ancient Sumerian and Egyptian religions can provide some valuable insight. The book of Genesis was written about 1440-1400 BC. It tells the story of how Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son (his "only" son, as God had promised him that his seed shall be as the number of stars, and that in Isaac shall his seed be called), knowing that if he sacrificed his son, God would be able to raise him from the dead. This pictures the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And many other prophesies, written long before Christ, were fulfilled in Him. |
|
|
|
Post by Ariete on Apr 1, 2021 17:36:39 GMT -5
The book of Genesis was written about 1440-1400 BC. It tells the story of how Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son (his "only" son, as God had promised him that his seed shall be as the number of stars, and that in Isaac shall his seed be called), knowing that if he sacrificed his son, God would be able to raise him from the dead. This pictures the resurrection of Jesus Christ. And many other prophesies, written long before Christ, were fulfilled in Him.
The Hobbit was written about 1936-1947. It tells about Bilbo Baggins.
|
|
|
|
Post by Strewthless on Apr 2, 2021 9:35:20 GMT -5
If God designed everything, then he's also responsible for a lot of sloppy mistakes. Mistakes that an all-knowing entity shouldn't be making.
|
|
|
|
Post by urania93 on Apr 2, 2021 14:42:56 GMT -5
The most absurd part of this page of the thread is the recurring use of (apparently) scientific proofs (like the calculation of the probability of a protein appearing spontaneously, or the conservation of the solar system angular momentum) with the purpose of demonstrating that science is wrong. Bah...
|
|
|
|
Post by snj90 on Apr 7, 2021 12:06:17 GMT -5
The most absurd part of this page of the thread is the recurring use of (apparently) scientific proofs (like the calculation of the probability of a protein appearing spontaneously, or the conservation of the solar system angular momentum) with the purpose of demonstrating that science is wrong. Bah... Using science to say science is wrong... you act like that's a bad thing. That's the scientific method. Using science, especially empirical science, to test and to falsify a theory is exactly how science works. Or at least, that's how it's supposed to work. In 1966, at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia (an Ivy League school), mathematicians and evolutionary biologists gathered and debated the issue. Good mathematical evidence was presented that Darwinian evolution is impossible. It ended with the production of, " Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution." That's how the process is supposed to work. But there are also people like Richard Dawkins, who will not debate creationists, which is rather anti-scientific of him. I doubt you could have a similar symposium at an Ivy League school today. And why not? Not because Darwinian evolution is more credible today than in 1966. It's certainly less--as the more we learn about the cell, the more complex we discover it is. No, the difference is academia is less open to viewpoints that oppose their naturalistic worldviews. |
|
|
|
Post by nei on Apr 7, 2021 12:28:11 GMT -5
good explanation of "in between fossils" start about halfway |
|
|
|
Post by urania93 on Apr 7, 2021 15:04:55 GMT -5
The most absurd part of this page of the thread is the recurring use of ( apparently) scientific proofs (like the calculation of the probability of a protein appearing spontaneously, or the conservation of the solar system angular momentum) with the purpose of demonstrating that science is wrong. Bah... Using science to say science is wrong... you act like that's a bad thing. That's the scientific method. Using science, especially empirical science, to test and to falsify a theory is exactly how science works. Or at least, that's how it's supposed to work. In 1966, at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia (an Ivy League school), mathematicians and evolutionary biologists gathered and debated the issue. Good mathematical evidence was presented that Darwinian evolution is impossible. It ended with the production of, " Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution." That's how the process is supposed to work. But there are also people like Richard Dawkins, who will not debate creationists, which is rather anti-scientific of him. I doubt you could have a similar symposium at an Ivy League school today. And why not? Not because Darwinian evolution is more credible today than in 1966. It's certainly less--as the more we learn about the cell, the more complex we discover it is. No, the difference is academia is less open to viewpoints that oppose their naturalistic worldviews. Albeit the use of brackets, that "apparently" was quite important to understand my post, as it was ment to underline that all the quotes that you recurrently copy from the internet to disprove some theory all belong to pseudoscience & co (i.e. a bunch of scientific sounding sentences intended to convince people about one position, but which cannot stand any real scientific confrontation). Nothing wrong with trying to dispute science with new scientific evidences, but that's definitively not what you are doing in here... Just to say, all the calculation about the probability of a protein forming spontaneously just demonstrate that a glass of water filled with amino acids it's very unlikely to form functioning proteins spontaneously, but that's not what abiogenesis or evolution theory are affirming and so this is not an argument that could confute that. According to those theories, life was not even supposed to have started from proteins, actually. As for the solar system angular momentum instead, that observation just indicates that the Sun somehow slowed its rotation somehow after the formation of the solar system (which is something on which several astrophysicists are working atm), but it is not like a missing explanation in a theory can make the all of it collapse, if you don't really have any empirical evidence disproving the rest of it. About that last book about the maths in evolution, I can't say much without reading the book in exam (which I won't), it could also be true that Darwinian evolution was somehow disproved in that book, who knows. In any case that original Darwinian theory was actually questioned and modified several times since then to include a lot of evidences that weren't known yet back in Darwin times. That's actually a quite important point, because no scientific theory is crystalized in time, there is always someone questioning some parts of it, bringing new proofs and eventually managing to add or modify some parts of it. Often I hear that scientists are believed to just follow the same ideas, but there are actually quite harsh disputes all the time about almost everything in that environment... |
|
|
|
Post by snj90 on Apr 7, 2021 15:35:16 GMT -5
Using science to say science is wrong... you act like that's a bad thing. That's the scientific method. Using science, especially empirical science, to test and to falsify a theory is exactly how science works. Or at least, that's how it's supposed to work. In 1966, at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia (an Ivy League school), mathematicians and evolutionary biologists gathered and debated the issue. Good mathematical evidence was presented that Darwinian evolution is impossible. It ended with the production of, " Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution." That's how the process is supposed to work. But there are also people like Richard Dawkins, who will not debate creationists, which is rather anti-scientific of him. I doubt you could have a similar symposium at an Ivy League school today. And why not? Not because Darwinian evolution is more credible today than in 1966. It's certainly less--as the more we learn about the cell, the more complex we discover it is. No, the difference is academia is less open to viewpoints that oppose their naturalistic worldviews. Albeit the use of brackets, that "apparently" was quite important to understand my post, as it was ment to underline that all the quotes that you recurrently copy from the internet to disprove some theory all belong to pseudoscience & co (i.e. a bunch of scientific sounding sentences intended to convince people about one position, but which cannot stand any real scientific confrontation). Nothing wrong with trying to dispute science with new scientific evidences, but that's definitively not what you are doing in here... Just to say, all the calculation about the probability of a protein forming spontaneously just demonstrate that a glass of water filled with amino acids it's very unlikely to form functioning proteins spontaneously, but that's not what abiogenesis or evolution theory are affirming and so this is not an argument that could confute that. According to those theories, life was not even supposed to have started from proteins, actually. As for the solar system angular momentum instead, that observation just indicates that the Sun somehow slowed its rotation somehow after the formation of the solar system (which is something on which several astrophysicists are working atm), but it is not like a missing explanation in a theory can make the all of it collapse, if you don't really have any empirical evidence disproving the rest of it. About that last book about the maths in evolution, I can't say much without reading the book in exam (which I won't), it could also be true that Darwinian evolution was somehow disproved in that book, who knows. In any case that original Darwinian theory was actually questioned and modified several times since then to include a lot of evidences that weren't known yet back in Darwin times. That's actually a quite important point, because no scientific theory is crystalized in time, there is always someone questioning some parts of it, bringing new proofs and eventually managing to add or modify some parts of it. Often I hear that scientists are believed to just follow the same ideas, but there are actually quite harsh disputes all the time about almost everything in that environment...
That evolutionists (and that term is indeed appropriate, and is no misnomer, as the formation of the solar system is formally described as an evolutionary process - at least, more generally, it is of the same uniformitarian paradigm) are "working" on it is not very impressive, as this has been known about for hundreds of years. It's one of the reasons that a nebular theory was once rejected. But evolution really has no alternatives. That the sun, which would have had more than 99% of the angular momentum of the solar system, somehow slowed its rotation to less than 1% of the total momentum of the solar system, while the rest of the system was not slowed, is absurd, and disproves cosmic evolution. But evolutionists are desperate to come up with some sort of fantastical scenario for this. Yet, even coming up with a scenario is not proof of anything.
It's also common for evolutionists to try to divorce evolution from abiogensis, but you can't have atheistic evolution without it. Molecules have no direction. They don't inherently favor the formation of living systems. The mathematics so strongly argues against this occurring by chance, and the probabilities for even basic things (which would still be a far way from actual life as we know it) are as I have described them.
|
|
|
|
Post by snj90 on Apr 7, 2021 15:41:08 GMT -5
By the way, the sun is far from the only problem for evolution. Pretty much the whole solar system discredits the evolutionary model, and specifically confirms that it must be young (i.e., in agreement with a biblical age).
|
|
|
|
Post by urania93 on Apr 8, 2021 11:38:58 GMT -5
Ok snj90 , if you saw that on youtube that's undisputable then... Because taking five minutes looking for recent finding on a certain field would cost too much fatigue I suppose... [1] [2] However, apart from all these specific examples which I won't confute one by one as I did some years ago in a certain other thread because I have better stuff to do, there is definitively some other elements that are emerging from your posts. In the last few ones in particular, the logic behind what you say sounds a lot like: "your theory misses some points, so it is wrong, and consequently my theory is undoubtedly the right one" (as if those were the only two possible options). But this is not how the falsification of a scientific theory works, and not even how to demonstrate than a new theory is right instead. This and similar logical fallacies were systematically noticed in creationistic writings [3], and it actually belongs more to pseudoscience [4] and conspiracy theory [5] than anything else. As such, it's quite evident that it's quite impossible to disprove any scientific theory (not even the weakest one) with any of this stuff, the confrontation would just not stand. |
|
