Science Disproves Evolution

[Betrade]

It's not going to change human development to 6000 years ago. It's not going to say that humans are special in that they didn't evolve from a previous species.

I agree. My point is that once again, science may be wrong about another thing.

AS I said before, I have no clue how life got started or why. I have no idea why it kept itself going or how and why basic consciousness even exists or how it came to be.

If evolution is true, which it may be; we still have a zillion unanswered questions regardless and we have no clue how, or more mysteriously, WHY it all got started. That includes everything from the big bang and all that come into existence afterward. There's really no known good reason why anything should have popped into existence or where all of that raw material from the big bang actually came from.

So even if evolution is true, we're still clueless as to why or how things reached a point where it was even possible or plausible or where all of that information that makes up everything came from.

So I guess I'm thinking way beyond evolution. Maybe I should start another thread for that matter because I'm being completely misread in this one.

But as far as this thread goes, the "science" as it's presented here doesn't disprove anything nor does it prove anything either, at least; not beyond a reasonable doubt. There are still a boat load of unanswered questions that we haven't even begun to address; much less begin to answer.

[Panzerkampfwagen]

All is theory,no facts to back any of it up.

My DNAs common sense tells me that matter and atoms is not all there is to life.Theres something else we don't know about.

Theres some facts for ya!

Theory in science is the highest of the high and is backed up by facts.

[Pappy&Me]

Theory in science is the highest of the high and is backed up by facts.

LOL,they can't even figure out how to cure the common cold or rid us of cockroaches!

They have managed to make WMD that can wipe us all out in 15min.s though.

[Pahu]

If evolution is true, which it may be; we still have a zillion unanswered questions regardless and we have no clue how, or more mysteriously, WHY it all got started. That includes everything from the big bang and all that come into existence afterward. There's really no known good reason why anything should have popped into existence or where all of that raw material from the big bang actually came from.

It seems to me that before the universe existed, it didn't exist and therefore there was nothing, out of which popped the universe. All our experience and experimentation shows that out of nothing, comes nothing by any natural cause. Therefore, logically, the cause of the universe must be supernatural.

But as far as this thread goes, the "science" as it's presented here doesn't disprove anything nor does it prove anything either, at least; not beyond a reasonable doubt. There are still a boat load of unanswered questions that we haven't even begun to address; much less begin to answer.

Since there are only two explanations for origins and one, evolution, has been disproved, doesn't that leave the other, creation?

[Pahu]

Theory in science is the highest of the high and is backed up by facts.

Actually, law is the highest level in modern science. If the theory cannot be falsified over a period of time, it graduates to a law.

[TopsyTurvy]

It seems to me that before the universe existed, it didn't exist and therefore there was nothing, out of which popped the universe. All our experience and experimentation shows that out of nothing, comes nothing by any natural cause. Therefore, logically, the cause of the universe must be supernatural.

Nice but wrong.

Since there are only two explanations for origins and one, evolution, has been disproved, doesn't that leave the other, creation?

Who's disproved evolution?

[Pappy&Me]

Nice but wrong.



Who's disproved evolution?

Those of us who can think!

Also in my 'rule of law'[just as good as any other therorist]we create because we are all creators who were created by the supreme Creator.

[TopsyTurvy]

Those of us who can think!

Also in my 'rule of law'[just as good as any other therorist]we create because we are all creators who were created by the supreme Creator.

Lol.

[Pahu]

Nice but wrong.

How is it wrong?

Who's disproved evolution?

Science, as I have been demonstrating.

[TopsyTurvy]

How is it wrong?

Because there are theories for multiple Big Bangs, multiverses among other things, yes no one knows but that in no way means 'God did it'. It's a simplistic, archaic thought process.

Science, as I have been demonstrating.

You've demonstrated nothing you've regurgitated old creationist crap. Nothing I haven't seen before.

[Pahu]

Codes, Programs, and Information 4


All isolated systems, including living organisms, have specific, but perishable, amounts of information. No isolated system has ever been shown to increase its information content significantly (f). Nor do natural processes increase information; they destroy it. Only outside intelligence can significantly increase the information content of an otherwise isolated system. All scientific observations are consistent with this generalization, which has three corollaries:

Macroevolution cannot occur (g).
Outside intelligence was involved in the creation of the universe and all forms of life (h).
Life could not result from a “big bang” (i).

f. Werner Gitt (Professor of Information Systems) describes man as the most complex information processing system on earth. Gitt estimated that about 3×10^24 bits of information are processed daily in an average human body. That is thousands of times more than all the information in all the world’s libraries. [See Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, 2nd edition (Bielefeld, Germany: CLV, 2000), p. 88.]

“There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.” Ibid., p. 107.

g. Because macroevolution requires increasing complexity through natural processes, the organism’s information content must spontaneously increase many times. However, natural processes cannot significantly increase the information content of an isolated system, such as a reproductive cell. Therefore, macroevolution cannot occur.

“The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself in a material medium, and the information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus precluded.” Gitt, p. 124.

h. Based on modern advances in the field of information theory, the only known way to decrease the entropy of an isolated system is by having intelligence in that system. [See, for example, Charles H. Bennett, “Demons, Engines and the Second Law,” Scientific American, Vol. 257, November 1987, pp. 108–116.] Because the universe is far from its maximum entropy level, a vast intelligence is the only known means by which the universe could have been brought into being. [See also http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1052519]

i. If the “big bang” occurred, all the matter in the universe was at one time a hot gas. A gas is one of the most random systems known to science. Random, chaotic movements of gas molecules contain virtually no useful information. Because an isolated system, such as the universe, cannot generate nontrivial information, the “big bang” could not produce the complex, living universe we have today, which contains astronomical amounts of useful information.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...tml#wp1050369]

[Panzerkampfwagen]

Actually, law is the highest level in modern science. If the theory cannot be falsified over a period of time, it graduates to a law.

No, law is lower than theory. Theories are well supported explanations. A law is just a simple statement.

Theories never become laws.

[TopsyTurvy]

Do 'people who can think for themselves' include Pahu who seems to be unable to type his own arguments and instead just copies/pastes from other websites, stuff that's years old and half of it nothing to do with evolution?

[Panzerkampfwagen]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html


Keep talking your shit. Science wins.

[Betrade]

The bottom line is, we live in a seemingly finite universe with many core observable laws; some of which SEEM to be constants. They've apparently been constant as long as we've been observing them but we have no idea whether or not they've been constant all along. If they're not, then everything we think we know may need to be radically adjusted.

Also, since there was a "big bang" (that no one heard and couldn't hear if they wanted to) that created space, time, light, the strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity and matter, then we can surmise that there CAN BE a "place" or "state" that exists which is beyond space, time and matter. Our 3 dimensional minds/senses can't even contemplate such a thing to any real degree.

If that state or place exists, the possibility exists that there could be some kind of being or beings who inhabit it. We don't know and may never know.

We cannot prove or disprove that idea because it's so far beyond what we can even perceive; much less observe or even begin to try and figure out and/or comprehend.

One thing we can observe is the fact that some organizing force or process is present in this universe. I don't think that can be logically denied although many people will scoff at the very idea despite the fact that this force or process is right in front of our eyes every day.

The fact that matter gathers itself into tangible things, many of which are actually conscious, sentient beings is mind boggling to me and science has not been able to explain how such a thing is even possible.

Sure, there are theories but none which have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I find it miraculous that we even exist and I acknowledge that we have many things to learn before we can even begin to understand the true nature of the reality that we exist in.

We don't even really know why our own bodies work the way they do or how all of our involuntary systems got going, organized themselves into a multitude of complex systems, makes our hearts start beating, closes up wounds, etc. Whatever drives us seems to be geared toward life, health and wellness and seems to "create" a perfect environment in which we can live, breathe, experience all of the things in life, etc.

It's all very mysterious and although we can observe, record, measure and even make predictions about what is taking place we cannot replicate anything remotely close to the miraculous thing we call life; nor have we observed any actual, conscious life popping into existence from nothing.

We have "observed" subatomic particles that seem to pop in and out of existence but we cannot yet explain how or why this happens.

IMO, we're still in pre school as far as the learning of knowledge is concerned. We've learned a great deal about many things but we're still hitting brick walls at every turn where our knowledge ends and the mystery begins.

[Pahu]

[QUOTE=Betrade;2100926]

You make some very thoughtful observations. Here is something else to consider:

Join me on an imaginary trip into the past—way back into the past. Let’s go all the way back to the very beginning of the universe. There are some who believe the universe had no beginning; that it has always existed. I think most scientists disagree with such a belief. One reason they give is the existence of radioactivity. Radioactive materials still exist, and are still in the process of breaking down into stable materials. The stars are a good example of this process. There are still stars out there burning with radioactive energy including our own sun. If the universe has always existed, everything would be in equilibrium. The whole universe would be stable. There would be no movement and no difference in temperature. Since that is not the state of the universe, it must have had a beginning.

So imagine we are standing at the very beginning of the universe. Since it did have a beginning, then there must have been a time before the beginning. Now, let’s take another step into the past. Let’s go back before the beginning. What will we be likely to find here? Well, we should expect to find nothing, shouldn’t we? Absolutely nothing! Not even a single atom. Not even a single electron. Nothing! In every direction from where we are standing, there is nothing but totally empty space.

But what is space? Where did it come from? Where does it begin? Where does it end? Space is the absence of everything. But how is this possible? How can it extend in all directions from our imaginary position without ending? It can’t end, can it? What would lie on the other side of the end? On the other hand, how can it not end? These seem to be the only two possibilities, and yet neither of them is possible, are they? Using logic and experience, we have arrived at a point that we are unable to understand or explain.

As if that were not enough of a problem, consider the fact that out of this absolute nothingness, the universe appears. But how is that possible? All of our experience and logic tells us nothing comes from nothing. And yet there it is. Sane people cannot deny that the universe does exist, can they? Using our experience and logic, we would have to conclude that the existence of the universe is impossible, and yet it does exist.

Have you ever thought about these things? Would you agree with me that we cannot answer these questions using observation, experience, experiment, and logic? These questions seem to be beyond our ability to answer. If there is an answer, I’ve never seen one that is based on observation, experience, experiment, facts and logic. We will have to admit that there are some facts that we simply do not have the ability to understand or explain.

[From "Reincarnation in the Bible?"
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/B...=SKU-000005147]

[TopsyTurvy]

You obviously have no grasp of basic physics.

[TopsyTurvy]

Post something new Pahu, something a 5 year old couldn't dispute. Go on I dare you.

[higgsy]

To claim full consciousness is to claim omniscience and since not everything is known we must assume nothing is known. That being said, I would not refute the consistency of scientific finds. What's repeatable is fact. What's theoretical is rhetorical conjecture driven by blind hope that enough evidence can be weighed in favor or opposition of the unknown. I wish religion would stick (or rather get back to) the study of virtue... because creationism's whole basis is definitely not prudent.

[Pahu]

Merry
Christmas!

TURN UP YOUR SPEAKERS AND WATCH CLOSELY

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