Fallacies of Evolution

I keep wondering what evolution has to do with creation of all we know that exists?

 

Chimpanzees and monkeys are not the same from a scientific point of view.
To use the words interchangeably is ... lazy.

 

Creatio ex nihilo (something from nothing) is a "religious" concept.

 

I've seen USFAN propose NO flaws in the TOE. There are misunderstandings, but that's all.

As for the big bang, it's MORE surprising than you suggest. Remember that half the universe was matter and half was antimatter - or nearly so. At the big bang, matter and antimatter annihilated each other - with a tiny percent of residue left over accounting for the difference between amount of matter and the amount of antimatter. Our universe is this residue!

So, yes, we seriously do not know what happened. Why wasn't there the same amount of matter and antimatter? What were the rules of physics that were in place before the big bang? What else has happened as a result of those rules of physics?

And, figuring it out is really hard, because it involves what was there BEFORE (or outside?) our universe - something incredibly difficult to look at.

But, that doesn't mean it was magic. It ONLY means that we don't know.

 

Physicists today see particles come into existence and then go out of existence again as they watch activity inside a vacuum.

You can call that "religious", of course.

 

You will find that some of my posts don't answer all your questions.

 

When I went to college, I could look up the background and expertise of all teachers.

I want to know why I am to accept the comments above? Are you a physicist or what?

Some of the speculation, such as claiming there was half matter and half anti matter seems like as much speculation as things posters say who talk of creation.

 

You are misinformed. I do not consider them to be the same.

Matter of fact, some Chimps eat monkeys.

 

Indeed;quantum events can happen without cause
The difference is scientists don't default to "God did it" as a catch-all for something they don't understand.

 

You shouldn't accept anyone on these boards as being an expert in their field, and that includes me - very obviously.

Here's a link to the problem I pointed to. The folks at Cern are definitely experts in their field, as you can verify.

https://home.cern/topics/antimatter/matter-antimatter-asymmetry-problem

Maybe I shouldn't have brought up that problem, but I see no reason to avoid the fact that there are some very fundamental questions for which science doesn't have a full explanation today.

Humans just don't know everything!! It's called "being human".

The real point I would like to consistently point to is that the right answer is, "I don't know" - not "God did it". "God did it" might be a legit answer if there was significant evidence that God did, in fact, do it. But, we don't have any kind of information like that. All we have is "I don't know" when we in fact don't know.

Unfortunately, science can't even form an opinion on God, because there is nothing in science that could possibly detect whether or not God is involved in anything. It's just not something science can do.

 

In post #1048 you said:
“I think the mockers of the Bible believe it is fine if they came from monkeys (chimpanzees) but they might not enjoy it were they to find out their ancestors were slimy and found in water and still exist.”

Based on that comment you appear to consider them to be the same.

 

mtDNA carries a 'marker' that indicates direct descendancy. What other 'analysis' of DNA shows descendancy? Merely a percentage of similarity or a 'looks like' correlation does not indicate descendancy.

A chimp had different genes, chromosome pairs, & has nothing that indicates descendancy, other than a speculative belief.

 

Yep. We sure can.

Oh Great Physicist, how do particles come into existence and then go out of existence again?

Dunno​

That must mean that GodDidIt!

 

No, that was for those who believe they are the same thing. In ( ) I put the correct animal.

 

I somewhat am in sympathy. Perhaps it is time to define GOD. Besides creating, I define GOD as awesome power. As you know, the water rushing over the very high dam has awesome power. Not on the scale GOD does, but the idea is easier to explain. Do we say it is water?

Water of the dam is water. Do we speak of the very high fall? We could, but the way I see it is it took awesome power to create the entire universe in such a diverse and uneven way. A big bang itself could give us a spread universe, such as one gits from a 12 gauge shotgun blast. But the universe is far too inconsistent with what is there, and spread in strange fashion for it to be natural.

I am not using GOD as one does in the Bible. This is not a denial of the lessons of the Bible, but a reflection it is not about being good or going to heaven. Such as when Dad used to get up in the AM and head to his job. His tasks separated him from family life. GOD can be a lot more than a task master barking orders as some think.

And Cern points out they are still trying to learn much more and hoping to finally explain a lot more and so they do good work.

Science mentions dark matter and anti matter. That is as much a mystery as GOD is. But we feel free to discuss dark and anti matter and not pass judgment on those discussing it.

 

It is as easy for me to think in GOD terms as it is for me to think in Quantum physics terms.

 

That may have been your intention;but that's not what it looks like.

 

I don't hold it against you that you don't accept my explanation.

 

I only see 'clear evidence of assertion'. WHAT evidence is there 'of change as humans evolved from earlier species'? That is the whole premise of this thread. You will see NO EVIDENCE of this, anywhere. It is an imagined scenario, only. I would be very interested in seeing what you think is this 'evidence'.

And, how can you 'stop' what has never started?

Scientific theories & beliefs about origins are 2 different things. The ToE is presented as a 'theory' of origins of species. It is not presented as a religious belief system. It is an equivocation to correlate them, unless you are saying the ToE is just a religious belief system. Here are the possibilities, regarding the ToE & beliefs about the supernatural:

1. Belief in the supernatural & the ToE.
2. Belief in the supernatural but not the ToE.
3. Belief in naturalism & the ToE.
4. Belief in naturalism, but not the ToE.

I consider #4 to be very rare.. probably non existent. #3 is the most common, for atheists, but is still a minority opinion, as the percentage of atheists in the culture is still small. #2 includes a broad range of people including many muslims, christians, or other supernaturalists, who have issues with the ToE, for various reasons. That is my position, & it probably is about the same as people in the #3 camp. Option #1 is most likely the majority opinion in the educated world today. It has been termed, 'theistic evolution', as they believe in a supernatural 'cause', but that this 'cause' started everything, then evolution finished things up.

So there is nothing incompatible with NOT believing in the ToE & origins agnosticism. It is a rare position, i am sure. Probably most who doubt the validity of the ToE are either religious literalists, or studied scientists, who see the flaws in the 'theory'. But it is a mistake to correlate those 2 as the same. The religious literalist can reject the ToE, based on their religious beliefs. But the scientifically minded skeptic does so on the basis of flaws in the theory. Not all conclusions about the ToE are based on religious beliefs, as many of the ToE faithful here would like us to believe. Some people actually know science.

I see much the same thing in #3. Most people who believe in the ToE and are naturalists do not have a broad range of scientific knowledge, but they believe anyway. Their beliefs are not based on personal understanding, or knowledge, but on the 'experts' they put their faith in.. much like the religious literalists who do the same with their 'experts'. There is a smaller percentage of people who actually know the science, & still believe in the 'theory'.

They are only related in the broader 'naturalistic' belief system. For the pure naturalist, they MUST have an assumption of abiogenesis, else how do you get life here in the first place? Once they assume life's beginnings, then they can rely on the ToE to bring us to where we are today. But as i just noted, theistic evolutionists see a creator as the initial 'spark', & then evolution being the mechanism for the complexity of living things. And, of course, this does not address the origin of the universe in general, or matter, time, space, or thought.

I completely agree there are misunderstandings about the ToE. Most people believe it is 'settled science!' But it is not. It is an imagined, speculated process, with NO EVIDENCE that it can, did, or will happen. We cannot observe it, repeat it, or define any mechanism by which it overcomes the HIGH WALLS of genetic conformity. All you have to do to support your claim, is provide some empirical evidence of living things changing on the structural genetic level. Show me HOW you can go from 23 to 24 chromosome pairs.. show how you can add complex genes for specific functions in an organism, like feathers, warm blood, eyes, legs, & abstract reasoning. If you cannot demonstrate this 'theory', it becomes a belief system ONLY. It is NOT a scientifically valid concept, & has NO evidence to support it. It is a belief.. a religious/philosophical belief, with no scientific basis.
Unfortunately, 'we don't know' is a rare position in this thread. Most people merely assert their beliefs, as if they do know.

 

And your peer reviewed scientific paper supporting this assertion?

 

What "marker" exists in mtDNA that shows this?

So for you, different numbers of chromosomes is evidence against relatedness of species? Why?

 

Anyone who disagrees with Evolution....Please explain the fresh water Dolphin?

 

How can chromosome number change:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/21/basics-how-can-chromosome-numb/

We see new species created simply by watching in laboratories. Most frequently, these involve short lived organisms, as it happens infrequently and it usually requires watching large numbers of generations.

There are several different methods for new species to occur. Probably the most frequent is just having a population separated (by food, locality, or whatever) leaving evolution to gradually cause change to the point where interbreeding between the communities is no longer possible. But, there are also events related to mitosis and meiosis that can cause viable offspring that speed the process. These have been witnessed under laboratory conditions.

The ToE is tested every time we find a new bone or look into dna and other structures with ever stronger tools. So far, there is no refutation.

There isn't anything magic about thought. Our brains are stupendously complex and have mechanisms such as emotions, memory, etc., etc. with the result being that we can contemplate our own nature, etc.

I don't know of any "flaws" with the ToE. I know many come up with flaws like "Species bearing weak babies prove survival of the fittest is wrong." That's entertaining, of course. And, there are the false applications of the laws of conservation of energy.

 

No you cannot claim that scientific theories and religious beliefs about origins are two different things. You can really only have one belief about the origin of our species. You can believe in evolution, or you can believe god did it or you can believe that you don't know. That is about all the choices you have.

 

Why would anyone claim that supernatural creation would mean there is no god?