Top Ten Scientific Facts : Evolution is False and Impossible.

page: 2
92
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 01:52 AM
link   
.
While abstraction has been a useful tool in Human thought I think in this case it gets in the way.

We separate life from organic chemistry. Why?

In a complex chemical soup some species of chemical(s) will be favored.

Do a logic experiment.
We have two species of molecules that a soup is equally likely to create.
One lasts longer before break down than the other.
The population will have a higher proportion of the longer lasting species.

In time any species of molecule that is possible to produce using the longer lasting molecules will be more likely to appear.

You are already talking about a selection process.

It has an implicit competition for spans of existence and use of pre-existing elements.

Molecules with a tendency to acrue other molecules into a stable configuration will persist. Could be globular (sphere), sheet, or linear chains [could include branching].

Sheets and chains would have some tendency/ability to tear or break especially if they get large/long enough.
if these sub units retain the tendancy to accrue matter into stable configurations they will grow.

It doesn't have to symetric, regular, or identical reproduction.

Accrue matterial with only occasional breaks and you have life.

feed and reproduce.

Very ugly, very messy, very haphazard, very disorganized.

Its just pond scum.
Like the skin forming on the top of gravy.

Obviously symetry and regularity are favored [more efficient, dependable] in this selection of molecules.

Exact replication probably didn't happen until a long time after this initial process.
But it had at least a half a billion years to do this.
.




posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 02:48 AM
link   
All scientists say evolution is real.If u want proof of evolution all u have to do is look at a butterfly or a frog.there u go, evolution.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Wow! Ed. Good job. It looks like you've put a lot of work into this.

And as I said in the other thread, you're overall message seems to be that:

Creation must be true because there are 'holes' in the theory of evolution.

I'm no scientist, but I'm going to have to go with Al Davidson, here. Proving a negative (that evolution is false) is a pretty tricky business. The scientific world is based on observable facts and indications. Regardless of how many holes there are (if there are), there are also observable facts and indications that evolution is a very viable theory.

It is a theory, and it's taught as theory, but there are scientific facts and observations that make it very likely to be true. Pointing out the 'holes' in evolution doesn't make it false, and even more importantly, it doesn't make creation true, it just means we haven't discovered everything about evolution yet.

If the scientific community (not just Christian scientists) observed facts and indications that creation was likely, that would be taught as a theory, too.

But there are no scientific indications that creation is a viable scientific theory.

Now, I'm not saying that creation is false. I believe in possibilities, but without scientific indications there is no way the scientific world will embrace it. I know you think creation is true and I think you should teach it to your kids but to make it a science that should be taught as a theory in schools, especially by trying to disprove evolution is, I believe, a wasted endeavor.

Unless there is evidence that creation (on its own merit - without depending on the 'holes' in evolution) has observable facts and indications, it's not a theory, but a belief by a religious group. Teaching it in schools would be nothing more than state-sponsored religion.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
But still it doesnt make sense to me #3 is just to complicated and the "before' organisms dont exist.

Bacteria, like I note above.


can someone explain how something that needs the 23? parts to live can evolve from less than the 23 needed to sustain life?

This '23 parts' thing sounds unreasonable, and the endosymbiosis theory seems to be a good explanation for eukaryotic cells.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   
.
Life may simply be defined as the self-organizing principle of organic chemistry through environmental filtering.
.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Self-organization is insufficient to define life, and its entirely possible that there is non-organic-carbon life.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Nygdan is carrying the discussion nicely, but I thought I'd pop on and give my opinion as to your 'facts', if that's alright with you ed.

1. Avail yourself of some knowledge regarding sexual selection. Class dismissed.

2. Would so called 'intelligent' design, ever create a creature so foolish as the big mouth toad? No, of course not. This species of toad is the result of runaway adaptation. These things will try to eat anything they see, including each other. This often leads to death from choking. The species continues down the dead end road because the frogs with the biggest mouths live longer, and breed more often, producing toads with ever-larger mouths.

As far as the predecessors to Giraffes and Elephants, there is plenty of information on their evolution for anyone interested in LOOKING.

allelephants.com...

3. I've agonized over this for years, and come to the conclusion that the only possible explanation for the creation of life is that it happened in the vastness fo space. When you consider the earth, it's not very big, nor does it have as much energy running about. Space is the perfect vessel for creating life, because it's huge, varied in minerals and component chemicals, bathed in high energy radiation. If abiogenesis happened anywhere, it's likely it happened in space.

That's not to say it's impossible for life to originate on planet earth, but the odds are better in space.

4. The formulation of this question proves a complete lack of understanding of the process of natural selection. It's precisely this sort of pseudo-scientific babble that puts people off the arguments of IDers and creationists. They don't understand what they're talking about for the most part.

5. Explain, if you can, how the error checking process proves evolution to be a fallacy. Maybe a little understanding of viral evolution is in order.

arxiv.org...

www.mcb.uct.ac.za...

6. Order exists in chaos, there are patterns in the molecules of even the most chaotic system. Chaos exists in order, there are entropic advances in even the most orderly system and indeed, over time, entropy destroys every system. I fail to see how the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to natural selection though.

7. Downs syndrome. Hmmmm...

8. Zero point. Hmmmm...

9. What has Mars got to do with anything? We have no idea if there's life on Mars, and just because there's life on earth doesn't mean there has to be life on the red planet as well. If life indeed did come to earth on a meteor, then the chance of Mars being struck with the same meteor, or one of a similar composition, is slim.

Just because there's no life on Mars, doesn't prove a thing about evolution. It's seriously grasping at straws to assume such a thing.

10. Really stretching now, huh? These are getting more and more flimsy.

I don't have a lot of respect for the tone of the article either, it's very combative and snotty. I suppose it suits the demeanor of its proponents perfectly.

The very idea that religion has earned the right to comment on science is laughable, given religion's track record on such matters.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent HereticWow! Ed. Good job. It looks like you've put a lot of work into this.


Thanks


Originally posted by Benevolent HereticAnd as I said in the other thread, you're overall message seems to be that:

Creation must be true because there are 'holes' in the theory of evolution.



No, as I have said I believe in adaptation of a species of animal or such but that it had a beginning, it was designed, it was created.



Originally posted by Benevolent HereticIf the scientific community (not just Christian scientists) observed facts and indications that creation was likely, that would be taught as a theory, too.



So what about intelligent design? Thats just as good a theory as evolution.




Originally posted by Benevolent HereticBut there are no scientific indications that creation is a viable scientific theory.



Well as I posted there are a few, #3 grabd me although there is some good replies to that. #12 also is a bit hard to grab.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
No, as I have said I believe in adaptation of a species of animal or such but that it had a beginning, it was designed, it was created.


OK. Then your overall message seems to be that:
Intelligent Design must be true because there are 'holes' in the theory of evolution.

All my same arguments apply. Trying to prove something IS true by proving something else is false in a field we know so little about is not scientifically viable. With evolution being a theory, we may come up with a 2nd, 3rd or 4th theory in the future. Even if you did prove evolution false (and I'm not saying that you have by any means), that in itself does not prove ID (or anything else) to be true.



So what about intelligent design? Thats just as good a theory as evolution.


No it isn't. Look at the study that has been done on evolution! For 150 years or more, scientists, REAL scientists, have been poring over each others' work and adding and proving and disproving and evaluating and testing... What study has been done on ID? NONE! All that has been done is a lame attempt to disprove evolution. And EVEN IF THEY DID, it proves nothing about ID or creation or 'spontanious energetic manifestation' (I just made that one up).


Again, if the scientific community (not just Christian scientists) observed facts and indications that Intelligent Design was a likely theory, that would be taught as a theory, too.

And to say, "Well, this proves evolution false, so ID must be true." is not an observable fact of ID. You have to show some evidence of ID, without regard to evolution. You have to prove that ID is a viable theory without standing on some 'fallacy' of evolution. Show evidence that upholds ID by itself.

The only way we can use something as a building block in science, is to confirm that "A" (the building block) is either true or false, through inexhaustible testing and confirmation. The only way we can say:

"A is false, therefore B is true" is if we KNOW that A is false and that there is no C, D, E or F. Better yet, we can say:

"A is true, therefore B is false." but we have to KNOW that A is true

What you're trying to say is;
"A is a theory. If A is false, then hypothesis B must be true."
That's not science, that's just wishful thinking. There are way too many assumptions and conclusions drawn (without proof) in your 'scientific facts' to be truly scientific.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Very simply then,

If your idea about evolution being the correct theory to teach, can you tell me how Intelligent Design has failed the test? With evolution obviously not 'complete' as you say, that makes it the only path then?


How can one prove that life is random chance?



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

If your idea about evolution being the correct theory to teach, can you tell me how Intelligent Design has failed the test? With evolution obviously not 'complete' as you say, that makes it the only path then?


Not necessarily. ID has neither passed nor failed any tests. ID has not been under test. Evolution has.

Evolution has been scientifically studied, evaluated and tested for 150 years. If we can say that there are 100 evolution principles we know to be true, but 10 that we haven't scientifically explained yet, that's a pretty good theory. Eventually we may be able to prove those last 10 items.

Intelligent Design is in the 'idea' stage. Scientifically, it's no more than a thought. If the Christian scientists want to prove ID as a scientific theory, I would advise they quit talking about evolution and get to work on proving that ID is a viable scientific theory on its own.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

How can one prove that life is random chance?



Well, first of all you could count all of the planets in the universe, and note which ones have life, and then run a test on statistical randomness, and voila.

Actually it's even less than random it's EXTREMELY rare. If we assume that there are billions of planets orbiting stars, and so far zero life forms anywhere else, then we have a one in a billion (less probably) chance of life.

Now, the creationist will of course point out that this is why it was "created" by God and so on, after all, there ought to be life elsewhere as well if we believe Darwin.

But, the complexity of the events that led to life are a product of elemental conglomeration.

In the big bang, we had just pure energy, eventually this energy cooled and as it cools it clumps as it clumps it forms atoms, and and suns spit out atoms and energy at clumped chunks of already cooled atoms and molecules (i.e. planets) it does some wierd things like tweak strange cocktails of other atoms and (dare we) molecules!!


As the molecules combine they form (shhhh) CELLS!!

And cells have learned to form macrocells, and beings, and it's all a giant trial and error mechanism.


Now, creationists, produce an alternative definition.

Truth is, they are BOTH correct. Creationists just leave out alot of details ...




posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

How can one prove that life is random chance?


Sorry, I forgot to address this. My answer is: I doubt we could prove it. At least not with the information we currently have. If we found life somewhere else, that would certainly indicate that evolution took place elsewhere, too, or (to the creationists and IDers in the crowd) that God is working several places in parallel, right?

What if we did discover extraterrestrial life? What would that mean to you, Ed?



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Thats just as good a theory as evolution.

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. More importantly perhaps, they have not been able to demonstrate that Design can be detected in natural objects.


can you tell me how Intelligent Design has failed the test?

Better to explain how it has passed the tests.

[quote[How can one prove that life is random chance?
How can one prove that it is designed??


Science merely tries to explain the universe in such a way as to not have to reference a supernatural being, since things about a supernatural being can only be understood thru faith, not material evidence.

So when science looks at the development of a human in the womb, its not saying that there is not any soul that enters the body, just as much as its not going to be able to say that there is. Science is mute on religious aspects. Life could be a miracle by god, Science will not be able to refute or affirm that.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Ed. I thought it was ten points not 12???


The list evolved...


Originally posted by Nygdan
More importantly perhaps, they have not been able to demonstrate that Design can be detected in natural objects.


What? Yes, they have, that's the only reason we are able to have science. The question is whether it came about by accident or if the process is intentionally directed in a certain way. And I think it's reasonable to believe that evolution is directed, after all, gravity on earth directs objects down.


But really, there is no reason why the consequence of Intelligent Design has to be any religiously-sanctioned God, it could just as easily be another law of nature in regards to biological organisms. As well, I am pretty confident to say that nature is intelligent, which is why we are still trying to overcome it, and have not yet done so.

[edit on 20-8-2005 by Jamuhn]



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Normally science and logic partner together, since reason confirms various steps to proof in any argument. Saying "Evolution is False and Impossible," then to offer proofs that are simple self assertions of facts the are observable in selected instances, is a far stretch.

Normally as in chemical reactions, there are many steps to produce chemical compounds. Organic compounds are even more complicated than simple compounds. Hence any argument asserting proofs claiming evolution as "false," must contain strong laboratory proofs. Saying "DNA repairs itself," is to miss the point by assertion, that you mean to say also "in every case everywhere." That cannot be supported.

In the back door towards merging science and religion once again into the dogmatic pool of resources, these arguments make assumptions on the basis of narrow observations and without laboratory controls.

Facing a "leap of faith," we are placed into a perspective where we want to agree with such ideas as "special creation," AKA "intelligent design." These are one and the same animal, if you will.

Does anyone want to return to the state of science in the middle ages, where the Pope or the head of the Southern Baptist Church, or anyone else defines science, and will not even look into the telescope, or microscope?

The only thing that can arise out of this attempted re-merger of science and religion is where religion becomes a parasite on the former credibility of science. People can puff themselves up, and declare how valid their beliefs are. Faith is about believing in unseen things, abstractions if you will upon things we cannot explain. Science is about lenses upon unseen things and laboratory controls to duplicate carefully controlled experiments. Dogma permits no experiments does it? The world is the firmament and it is flat, end of story!

I cannot duplicate an event that convinces me I have experienced a miracle, and that is why I am alive. My experience tells me so, but it will not pass the test of science.

Keep "intelligent design," in the realm of theology, and quit intervening upon wise divisions of specialized knowledge in the history of science.

[edit on 20-8-2005 by SkipShipman]



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   


Faith is about believing in unseen things, abstractions if you will upon things we cannot explain.


Well, then I guess we can put gravity and math in the realm of theology since we can't see them.

But really, try to tell a religious person that you cannot see any evidence of God. They'll look around, and say "I do."



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Hmmm, I will respond to your "truths" when


*edit to remove flaming*

[edit on 20-8-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkipShipman
Faith is about believing in unseen things...


It's actually about believing in 'unproven' things. I was going to mention this and then Jamuhn brought it up. Yes, the wind cannot be seen, but we can prove that it exists and see the effects of it. Same with gravity and math. We see the effects.

And some would argue that they see the effects of God, but that's opinion. Unless you see people floating around, we ALL agree that gravity exists. But we don't all agree about God.

Faith is a wonderful thing. It's what gets some people through life. It saves marriages, it saves sanity, it provides comfort. It has nothing to do with science, though. Trying to combine them, in my mind at least, is an insult to faith. Faith is pure, unquestioning belief. That's incredible! It's right up there with love.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. And the greatest of these is love. -Somewhere in the bible



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Very simply then,

If your idea about evolution being the correct theory to teach, can you tell me how Intelligent Design has failed the test? With evolution obviously not 'complete' as you say, that makes it the only path then?


How can one prove that life is random chance?


I think that to be considered a valid theory, you must have credible evidence to support a conclusion. Intelligent design has none, the only thing I have heard from that camp are vague statements saying that evolution can't be right so creationism (the passe name for intelligent design) must be right. Sorry but that isn't credible evidence. Everything (and it is a lot) does indicate that life is random chance, and yes, it has been demonstrated in many ways by thousands of very smart people.





new topics
top topics
 
92
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join