The problem with evolutionist

Well, the latest is that these ideas are thinking kind of small!

After a large distance of nothing at the edge of OUR universe are a multitude, possibly infinite, number of OTHER universes with their OWN 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars, all of these universes with their own Big Bangs, or even other types of initiation, if any. These universes will be both vastly older and newer than 14 billion years.

Those universes could also have their OWN version of physical laws. Further this could be multiplied by 8 or more dimensions.

Scientific American (you need a subscription to read the article) http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=looking-for-life-in-the-multiverse

 

You're sayin what I'm sayin, why is point Y so special and point Z not? If point Y and Z are =, then they both have the potatial of POOFing a universe into existance.

 

"Evolutionist"?

That is just a term Christians use to make evolution sound like some kind of religion. Being a biologist or scientist implies that you have accepted the theory of evolution. It's pretty much common sense to them. There may be a controversy with it politically, and socially; but between actual scientific organizations, the there is no debate. The debate is over.

 

It's not just common sense to the people that are in most scientific fields, it's almost as proven as computer science.

 

Except there was no location, nor any time or existence before then. It's effectively saying that everything had a starting point. Not really contentious, and not accurately described by your simplification. All energy ever began existing, and time only came after that.

Notions like "begin" are meaningless without time, and time is a consequence of the universe. There is no cause and effect without time, nor is there any period in which this energy did not exist. Literally everything that ever happened until that point happened immediately and concurrently, because there was no time (as we know it) before the universe.

Your description kind of suggests that there was this stretch of time when there was nothing, and then suddenly energy appeared at a point within that nothing. Which doesn't make sense and isn't what's suggested by the prevailing models.

If you want it really simplified, the best you can do is to say that "Energy occurred, everything else followed." There was no location Y, or time period Z, or anything else, because there was literally nothing before the universe--not even emptiness.

The current models have the expansion (not explosion) happening before matter condensed. It's not like they're talking about some explosion that spreads existence like a shockwave--everything is always continually expanding, only being held at bay by nuclear forces, electromagnetism, and gravity.

There would be no void, no infinity. There would be no time in which to observe that nothing either. Everything--even distance itself--would not exist. It would not be some vast inky blackness... nothing would not even be that much. There literally cannot ever be nothing, because there would be no time for it to exist within.

There would be no location, nor any time before the beginning. Location, distance, space, time... all of these are consequences of that initial expansion. Nothing, in a cosmological standpoint, is nothing beyond the capacity to imagine, except on an intellectual level. It's not possible to visualize nothing. The best human beings could approximate--vast inky blackness--would not actually be nothing.

Except it's not really like magic.

You didn't read what I said about space or time, did you? There was no time before the universe, there was no distance (space) before the universe.

Except there would be nowhere to fall.

 

Problem with evolutionist is there are none. It is religious BS fake opponent they like to mess with because they think it make them look smart.

Evolution has nothing to do with religion myth and story. There is science, and there is storytelling.

If you wonder why the uSA is failing in science in the world, it could be explained by the foolish explanations of religion as a way intellect.

Again there is intellect and there is obey/worship this or that.

 

But energy cannot be created or destroyed. Thefor, the energy has ALWAYS been there.... and yes, on that fatefull day, 14 billion years ago, this energy decided to POOF a universe into existance

This is why the universe is infinate. Because the energy to make the universe had to AWAYS be around.

Time and space are relitive to the people measuring it. A mile is a hella long ways for a flea, but not so far to a human.

This is the hole tree falls in the forest, and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?

I'm saying the universe has always existed. That big bangs(POOFs) happen all the time across an infinite plain.

So your saying the energy POOF'd into existance

But its totally impossable for other expansions to exist? If one can exist HERE, then they can exist elsewhere. They can be super dupper small or super dupper big

Inky blackness that can POOF energy into existance

So this it the one time and place an expantion can exist. Beyond the expantion... nothin but inky blackness.... But way out in that inky blackness, no way another big bang can happen

getting energy from nothing sounds like magic to me. POOF!

but there was X amount of energy that randomly POOFs into a universe.

Just infinate inky blackness... nomatter how far you go, never ever see anything like what we got here. Even though energy acts the same way and always takes the easyest path

 

This is correct. 'Always' requires time, and time didn't exist before the big bang (at least, according to the model). For all of time, the energy has been there. One way to say that is to say that the energy has always been there. It's not like we're talking about some stretch of time and space wherein the universe occurred--because there wouldn't have been any time to have passed beforehand. There wouldn't have been a 'before'.

Well, that was the start of everything; there could have been no poof, because there was nothing for the universe to poof into. It wasn't a 'fateful day', it was the first day.

For as long as time has been around, yes. But that doesn't make it infinite. You'd have to assume that time is eternal and infinite for that to be true.

Irrelevant. There would have been no space-time without the universe.

No. It's a comment about the nature of nothing. Nothing means nothing. Not even dimension, space-time, energy. Basic fundamental concepts do not make sense before the universe. Even the notion of 'before' the universe makes no sense because that implies the passage of time and causality, which cannot exist without time... and time is a product of the universe. This is more difficult to comprehend than trees falling with no sentient observers.

Maybe, maybe not. There is no way to determine if there are other universes. What we do know is that this universe has always existed, because without the universe there was no time, and 'always' requires time.

I'm saying that the big bang and existence are concurrent. That there was no existence preceding the big bang into which the universe could have poofed. There was nothing before the universe.

You're assuming that there is somewhere else for them to exist. This is the great big black void assumption. If the universe is the sum total of all existence, there is nowhere else for other universes to be hiding. The universe isn't just the limit of the distribution of galaxies, after which there is a great black vacuum. It's the sum total of all existence, up to and including space-time itself, outside of which there can be nothing. Not even space-time, or an infinite vacuum.

You keep propping up this straw man, I keep knocking it down. I can't see any reason for you to keep propping it back up. There would be no inky blackness for the universe to poof into; There can be no space outside the universe that the universe could exist within.

Nothing, not even blackness. Nothing, not even an infinite stretch of space. Nothing. Complete, and total nothing, where not even space and time exist. A n infinitely nonexistent terminator line between the expansion of space-time and the pure nonexistence it expands into.

There is no metaphor useful to describe this visually or artistically. Not bubbles within a glass, nor a balloon being filled with air. Nothing is something that cannot be visualized, because even infinite inky blackness is something.

There is no where else for it to happen. There is no space where it could happen. If the big bang models are correct, there is no place outside the universe. It is the complete sum total of everything existent. If you can see, you're still in the universe. If you look out and see an infinite void, you're still in the universe. If the model is correct, the universe would not be like a galaxy, separated from other galaxies by great stretches of empty space. If the big bang model is correct, there is literally nothing outside the universe. Not a vacuum, not a black void, nothing. It would not be merely an absence of light, it would be an absence of space-time itself. Everything outside the universe would happen at the same time, and in the same place, if anything could even happen.

Energy which has always existed, because without which there would be no always, nor any existence.

Randomly? Who said anything about randomly?

Nope. Can't be infinite, can't be black. Can't be anything. The end of the universe would be the end of all existence, beyond which would be nothing at all. Not even inky blackness.

There would be nowhere to go. Literally. Not as in 'there are no landmarks or points of interest'. As in, there is literally no way to progress. There would be no space in which to go. There would be no infinite stretch of emptiness, because there wouldn't be any distance. Space-time is something, and it ends at the edge of the universe, according to the theory. I guess if you could somehow go faster than the universe is expanding, you'd just get infinitely compressed against the edge of the universe as you ran out of space-time in which to travel.

 

I gotta say, we'll have to agree to dissagree. Well played You make good points but I still think you are POOFing something from nothing. And if nothing, is something, then anywhere nothingness can exist, something can exist. It's been a hella deep arguement though I must say

 

Like most threads on this forum the example is debated instead of the question. Should evolution be taught if it has so many holes and inconsistencies??? I am not saying theology should be taught, im asking exclusively about evolution.

 

It is the currently accepted scientific theory as to how we came to be so yes it should be taught. Why wouldn't it? We don't know what gravity is but we still teach that it exists.

 

I don't really get how people can deny the process of evolution. Human beings are a factor in evolution -- probably one of the biggest factors at the moment. Look at dogs, horses and other animals, and how we've controlled their evolution for our own purposes.

 

'Holes' in scientific theories are represented by observations that do not match the theory in some profound and perplexing way. What relevant observations can you point to which do not fit into evolutionary theory?

 

The 2nd law of 'thermal-dynamics' How is it that this law applies to everything in the universe. (entropy...decay..) except, ta dah..human beings. We're special? The laws of physics don't apply to us? Sounds a bit 'metaphysical' to me..being special and above the laws of physics and all. Even our individual lives succumb to that 2nd law....yet our march forward as a species defies it by being on that 'special' evolution train?

 

How does being human violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

 

Gravity comes from the earths rotation. the definition of science requires objective proof. no such proof of evolution exists

 

evolution is replete with unanswered question. My original Op stated a few examples. one only has to research the subject to discover its flawed science and conjecture.

 

I believe you are refering to transitional fossils. Which are fossils that show traits of two different species. They have been found, just not for humans.

 

I found only two general 'problems', and I will explain them. I'm not even a professional biologist, and even I learned this much.

There wasn't much oxygen on Earth until life came about--that much is evident from the geological record. The oxygen itself came from photosynthesis by cyanobacteria, who are still hard at work today. Oxygen is really reactive, and won't be present in an atmosphere without significant work done to liberate it. Your criticism has the timeline of oxygen production wrong.

The smallest bacterial cell today may have that much, but it's well known that archaea (which are rather different from contemporary bacteria, even if they're both very small living things) are often significantly less complex. Archaea, for example, have no organelles or cell nuclei. Neither do archaea use the same array of complex proteins for cell membranes.

Your claim about machinery is also wrong. A lot of machines have more parts, highly complex programming, and trillions of atoms (not really sure why this part matters so much). Designers tend to make things more complex, not less. If you see an example of elegant simplicity, it's an example not of design, but of progressive evolution. Seriously, the last people you want to go to to find simple elegance are engineers.

Ok, there was an old idea by Crick that was proven wrong. So what? The actual answer to this lies in proper taxonomic classification. We don't need to invent hypothetical proto-bacteria, such "bacteria" exist today as Archaea and have been observed quite a lot. Cells can get remarkably simple. Just because most bacteria today are highly specialized with vast arrays of specialized organelles and complex cellular structures does not mean that all cells must have always been that way. At their most basic, a cell must only have a cell membrane, cytoplasm, and DNA. Nothing else is strictly required, as Archaea demonstrate. They further show that alternate biochemical routes exist for the creation of similar structures--that features of cells do actually have less complex precursors.

"The vast majority of mutations" have only minor effects, often with a negligible impact on that organism's ability to survive. Mutation is usually rather inane, not profound. For example, there is a human mutation that allows some humans to process lactase into adulthood--this mutation is of nebulous advantage and basically only has value because of some cultural habits. Sure, there are some genes where mutations cause tremendously harmful effects, but mutations in these genes seem about as common as more beneficial mutations.

That said, yes, nature is unkind to those not fit to survive. Even if 90% of a species dies off from lack of adaptation, the 10% that survive will be stronger for it.

 

Some of the differences between later hominid "species" are fairly minor. Basically any time there was a change in brain size there's a new species 'discovered'.

 

Religion. Is faith, no science. No practical matters. No provable thing. So your creationist myth can be so valid or so nonsensical like the mine of the Flying Spaguetti Monster. There isn't necessity to discuss about nonsense things.

If you don't want that people laugh at your beliefs, don't have so funny beliefs

 

Gravity comes from the earth mass...not the fact that it revolves.


Besides...gravity is just a theory.

 

WTF? Just a theory....

Yeah...here the understanding of scientific theories...

A scientific theory is the highest level of proof that something can arrive. A theory is based in many laws.

 

Right. Gravity is a theory. It's a theory that explains the observation that matter attracts other matter with a strength proportional to the mass of the involved bodies.

A scientific law is just a objective description of the results of a large number of observations. Theories provide the more useful explanations about reasons and causes. The anti-intellectual notion (and I know you're not promoting that) that theories 'become' laws is wrong.

 

I reacted as I reacted, because saying that is only a theory I interpret that person is promoting the anti-intellectual notion.