Science Disproves Evolution

[Betrade]

You obviously have no grasp of basic physics.

Yes I do.

But that doesn't negate the fact that we still have much to learn about many things and there are some things we still remain clueless about.

Just look at all of the different definitions of consciousness that exist. What's the actual difference between non living/unconscious matter and living/conscious matter?? How, why, when and where does the change take place?? How is that leap made??

Anesthesiologists know how to put people under and free them from the pain of surgery yet science still doesn't understand how or why it even works or where the consciousness 'goes" during the anesthesia.

There is one complex theory regarding this that's gaining some acceptance but hasn't been proven yet. It claims that consciousness exists with and without us and also exists at some quantum level. The guy who's come up with this theory has been working on it for decades after being an anesthesiologist himself for 20 some years.

We know that consciousness can and does affect matter too. Certain waves only become particles if and when they're OBSERVED by some conscious being. How do we explain that one?? Can you??

The truth is, we can't; at least not yet. We know that this happens but we have no clue why. We may figure it out and I hope we do but so far, we're still figuring.



Sorry but physics explains a great deal but it certainly doesn't explain everything by a long shot. It would be great if it did but as of now it doesn't. Maybe some things are just not meant to be known; who really knows??

[Panzerkampfwagen]

Yes I do.

But that doesn't negate the fact that we still have much to learn about many things and there are some things we still remain clueless about.

Just look at all of the different definitions of consciousness that exist. What's the actual difference between non living/unconscious matter and living/conscious matter?? How, why, when and where does the change take place?? How is that leap made??

Anesthesiologists know how to put people under and free them from the pain of surgery yet science still doesn't understand how or why it even works or where the consciousness 'goes" during the anesthesia.

There is one complex theory regarding this that's gaining some acceptance but hasn't been proven yet. It claims that consciousness exists with and without us and also exists at some quantum level. The guy who's come up with this theory has been working on it for decades after being an anesthesiologist himself for 20 some years.

We know that consciousness can and does affect matter too. Certain waves only become particles if and when they're OBSERVED by some conscious being. How do we explain that one?? Can you??

The truth is, we can't; at least not yet. We know that this happens but we have no clue why. We may figure it out and I hope we do but so far, we're still figuring.



Sorry but physics explains a great deal but it certainly doesn't explain everything by a long shot. It would be great if it did but as of now it doesn't. Maybe some things are just not meant to be known; who really knows??

No, wave functions will collapse when observed by machines.

[higgsy]

Merry
Christmas!

TURN UP YOUR SPEAKERS AND WATCH CLOSELY

http://www.youtube.com/user/AlphabetPhotography

And this is why we all bow our heads in reverence of George Frideric Handel each time this year.

[Pahu]

Compatible Senders and Receivers


Only intelligence creates codes, programs, and information (CP&I). Each involves senders and receivers. Senders and receivers can be people, animals, plants, organs, cells, or certain molecules. (The DNA molecule is a prolific sender.) The CP&I in a message must be understandable and beneficial to both sender and receiver; otherwise, the effort expended in transmitting and receiving messages (written, chemical, electrical, magnetic, visual, and auditory) will be wasted.

Consider the astronomical number of links (message channels) that exist between potential senders and receivers: from the cellular level to complete organisms, from bananas to bacteria to babies, and across all of time since life began. All must have compatible understandings (CP&I) and equipment (matter and energy). Designing compatibilities of this magnitude requires one or more superintelligences who completely understand how matter and energy behave over time. In other words, the superintelligence(s) must have made, or at least mastered, the laws of chemistry and physics wherever senders and receivers are found. The simplest, most parsimonious way to integrate all of life is for there to be only one superintelligence.

Also, the sending and receiving equipment, including its energy sources, must be in place and functional before communication begins. But the preexisting equipment provides no benefit until useful messages begin arriving. Therefore, intelligent foresight (planning) is mandatory—something nature cannot do.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1821409]

[Betrade]

No, wave functions will collapse when observed by machines.

So you're saying that this ONLY happens with machines??

According to what I've read from many sources , this also happens from human observation.

[Pahu]

Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design? 1


When the same complex capability is found in unrelated organisms but not in their alleged evolutionary ancestors, evolutionists say that a common need caused identical complexities to evolve. They call this convergent evolution.

For example, wings and flight occur in some birds, insects, and mammals (bats). Pterosaurs, an extinct reptile, also had wings and could fly. These capabilities have not been found in any of their alleged common ancestors. Other examples of convergent evolution are the three tiny bones in the ears of mammals: the stapes, incus, and malleus. Their complex arrangement and precise fit give mammals the unique ability to hear a wide range of sounds. Evolutionists say that those bones evolved from bones in a reptile’s jaw. If so, the process must have occurred at least twice (a)—but left no known transitional fossils. How did the transitional organisms between reptiles and mammals hear during those millions of years (b)? Without the ability to hear, survival—and reptile-to-mammal evolution—would cease.

Concluding that a miracle—or any extremely unlikely event—happened once requires strong evidence or faith; claiming that a similar “miracle” happened repeatedly requires either incredible blind faith or a cause common to each event, such as a common designer.

a. “...the definitive mammalian middle ear evolved independently in living monotremes and therians (marsupials and placentals).” Thomas H. Rich et al., “Independent Origins of Middle Ear Bones in Monotremes and Therians,” Science, Vol. 307, 11 February 2005, p. 910.

“Because of the complexity of the bone arrangement, some scientists have argued that the innovation arose just once—in a common ancestor of the three mammalian groups. Now, analyses of a jawbone from a specimen of Teinolophos trusleri, a shrew-size creature that lived in Australia about 115 million years ago, have dealt a blow to that notion.” Sid Perkins, “Groovy Bones,” Science News, Vol. 167, 12 February 2005, p. 100.

b. Also, for mammals to hear also requires the organ of Corti and complex “wiring” in the brain. No known reptile (the supposed ancestor of mammals), living or fossil, has anything resembling this amazing organ.

[From “In the Beginnng” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1231582]

[Panzerkampfwagen]

So you're saying that this ONLY happens with machines??

According to what I've read from many sources , this also happens from human observation.

I didn't say only.

[Betrade]

When you boil it all down there's still one question that exists.

Since everything that exists is energy; what is the source of that energy??

We would have to ask this question if just one atom of any kind existed. Why does it vibrate and what's the energy source causing that vibration?? There are many other questions that would apply as well but IMO, that's the big one.

[Pahu]

When you boil it all down there's still one question that exists.

Since everything that exists is energy; what is the source of that energy??

We would have to ask this question if just one atom of any kind existed. Why does it vibrate and what's the energy source causing that vibration?? There are many other questions that would apply as well but IMO, that's the big one.

It is my understanding that science doesn't even know what energy is.

[Panzerkampfwagen]

It is my understanding that science doesn't even know what energy is.

It's my understanding that you don't know what anything is.

[Pahu]

Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design? 2


Furthermore, it is illogical to maintain that similarities between different forms of life always imply a common ancestor (c); such similarities may imply a common designer and show efficient design. In fact, where similar structures are known to be controlled by different genes (d) or are developed from different parts of embryos (e), a common designer is a much more likely explanation than evolution.

c. “By this we have also proved that a morphological similarity between organisms cannot be used as proof of a phylogenetic [evolutionary] relationship...it is unscientific to maintain that the morphology may be used to prove relationships and evolution of the higher categories of units...” Nilsson, p. 1143.

“But biologists have known for a hundred years that homologous [similar] structures are often not produced by similar developmental pathways. And they have known for thirty years that they are often not produced by similar genes, either. So there is no empirically demonstrated mechanism to establish that homologies are due to common ancestry rather than common design.” Jonathan Wells, “Survival of the Fakest,” [i]The American Spectator, [i]December 2000/January 2001, p. 22.

d. Fix, pp. 189–191.

Denton, pp. 142–155.

“Therefore, homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes, and homology of phenotypes does not imply similarity of genotypes. [emphasis in original] It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. ... But if it is true that through the genetic code, genes code for enzymes that synthesize proteins which are responsible (in a manner still unknown in embryology) for the differentiation of the various parts in their normal manner, what mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same ‘patterns’, in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this question in 1938, and it has not been answered.” [Nor has it been answered today.] Gavin R. deBeer, formerly Professor of Embryology at the University of London and Director of the British Museum (Natural History), [i]Homology, An Unsolved Problem [i] (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 16.

e. “Structures as obviously homologous as the alimentary canal in all vertebrates can be formed from the roof of the embryonic gut cavity (sharks), floor (lampreys, newts), roof and floor (frogs), or from the lower layer of the embryonic disc, the blastoderm, that floats on the top of heavily yolked eggs (reptiles, birds). It does not seem to matter where in the egg or the embryo the living substance out of which homologous organs are formed comes from. Therefore, correspondence between homologous structures cannot be pressed back to similarity of position of the cells of the embryo or the parts of the egg out of which these structures are ultimately differentiated.” [emphasis in original] Ibid., p. 13.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1612912]

[Panzerkampfwagen]

[neutrino78x]

When you boil it all down there's still one question that exists.

Since everything that exists is energy; what is the source of that energy??

The source of the energy would be the singularity.

I think what you are really trying to say is that science answers the question of "how", whereas philosophy/religion answers the question of "why".

The process of evolution is filed under "how". Religion is not involved in that unless you read the Bible the way Osama bin Laden reads the Koran.

Those of you who have this delusion that evolution is in conflict with mainstream, non-fundamentalist Christianity need to realize that if Genesis were written thus:

in the beginning, God wrote the fundamental laws of physics. These laws caused a singularity, resulting in the Big Bang. Eventually, without further influence from God, life came into being on Earth and other places, and sentient beings evolved on those various planets

the result would be the same. It is saying the same thing.

The fundamentalists are taking it way too literally.

Genesis had what was considered good science in its day. In fact, it is basically a repetition of the Babylonian creation myth. Eight thousand years later, we have learned a lot more about the universe and how things came into being. If the writers of Genesis knew about evolution, they would have mentioned it, but they didn't.

That's the reason it is not in there.

btw if you read Brother Astronomer, a book by a senior Jesuit Brother at the Vatican Observatory, you would know that what I just said is mainstream Catholic teaching. Any Jesuit priest will confirm it.

And the Catholics are Christians. The Roman Catholic Church is the original Christian Church. If the Pope accepts evolution, so should Glen Beck et al.

--Brian

[Betrade]

The source of the energy would be the singularity.

Of course it is because 'singularity" is the last answer when all others run out, so it's NO definitive answer. You can ask the most brilliant minds for a definition of the term and get 100 different unprovable explanations.

Singularity can't even be defined as to what it really is or "where" it comes/came from.

Face it, we can explain how lots of things work based on observation, trial and error and such but in the end we have no clue how anything really got started or why. Even if evolution is 100 true we still have an almost infinite number of unanswered questions about reality.

We can't even "see" things as they truly are. We can only perceive a VERY TINY sliver of the light spectrum with our extremely limited sensory equipment.

The same can be said for all of our limited senses and no matter how many answers you come up with I can always come up with another question that neither you, nor a combination of the greatest human minds throughout all of human history can answer.

You might as well admit that much at least.

[higgsy]

I remember hearing the more popular version of the bing bang says that the universe started off as immensely hot and so it compressed like a powder keg... creating the initial spark. How do they explain for the heat? No matter = no friction. What am I missing here? Maybe they mentioned gas but then that raises the obvious question. Where did the gas originate?

[Betrade]

I remember hearing the more popular version of the bing bang says that the universe started off as immensely hot and so it compressed like a powder keg... creating the initial spark. How do they explain for the heat? No matter = no friction. What am I missing here? Maybe they mentioned gas but then that raises the obvious question. Where did the gas originate?

Good point.

The laws of physics as we understand them don't even hold up everywhere in our own universe.

No one understands what happens inside a black hole because those laws go right out the window.

What does science actually call it when that happens?? A singularity of course. That's what they call what they run out of answers for in many cases. I even saw a scientist/astronomer admit that every fact on TV about 6 months ago.

I also know a number of amateur astronomers and they're very knowledgeable. Our conversations, although filled with lots of information and many answers; always end up with more questions that NO ONE can answer.

This universe is still full of WAY more questions than answers despite everything we've learned so far and personally; I really like it that way.

[higgsy]

Well, my username is a play on the Higgs Boson... we'll see what cern comes up with... though I only know about this stuff in passing. Certainly don't have the group of friends you do or a degree. It's all very interesting... dark matter especially.

[Althemier]

It is the flag-wavers in history, the people so prone to subscribe to one -ism or another and so desperate to force it one anyone else around them, that poison this species' most valuable asset; Our ability to look at the world around us, to think and feel and decide for ourselves what this world is all about.

Theres nothing wrong with discussion, in fact its how we've come to create what we collectively 'know' as a race. But what I've seen for the most part in this thread is just a bunch of freudian bigger intellectual dick contests. I'm not here to argue the validity of anyones opinion but i have to ask, what in YOUR personal experience makes these things feel true to YOU?

Personally i don't know if there is a definite answer, more like say... 'waves of probability'?

[higgsy]

...what in YOUR personal experience makes these things feel true to YOU?

The threads tangented a bit from the original post. What do you mean by "these things"?

[higgsy]

If we were designed by God why did he make animals better at things than us? If I was God and were creating my 'perfect children' I'd give them the sense of smell of a dog, eyesight of an eagle and the strength of an ant.

Every time a super race is created they become power hungry monsters, that's why. Duh...