Fossil Challenge for Evolutionists

[GodsGrace101]

It would help if you avoided leading phrases and terms such as the "language of creation". You are making the error of assuming something that has no evidence to support it. It is hard for others to take you seriously when such prejudicial language is used. If I used such language to support atheism here it would not only be incorrect to do so, it would also lead to repercussions from the moderators here.

Maybe I just don't know the correct term?
The language of creation...
the language in DNA that tells it how to reproduce what it's going to reproduce.

If I have to be a scientist to speak here, then, yes, I should just leave.

 

[sfs]

Something cannnot be created from nothing

is NOT a law of physics?

Not as stated, no. There is a law of the conservation of energy, although it's not clear whether that applies to the universe itself or not.

 

[Steve Petersen]

And it may always remain one. From what I have seen there are now multiple pathways that may have led to life. If there is more than one viable means then we may never know which exact pathway was taken. Though contrary to what creationists claim as we learn more and more it appears that abiogenesis is very very possible.

It might be helpful for Creationists to see the other hypotheses you mention.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh,,,as a Christian I'm supposed to be perfect?
How disingenuous of you. You must know more about Christianity than you pretend to know -- then again, maybe you don't. Should I assume...like YOU have assumed things about me?

I'm not here as a Christian..I'm here as a human being. I've spoken about God only when it came up in conversation --- like you're doing right now.

Do you mean to tell me that:

Something cannnot be created from nothing

is NOT a law of physics?

As a Christian you should try to avoid specific activity. No one is prefect, guess what? Not even me. What you did amounted to breaking the Ninth Commandment which is not just a ban on lying. It is a ban on making false statements about others. If you say something about someone else and it is not true, but you believed it that statement is still false. It is still a bearing of false witness. And so is your claim of my being disingenuous. Seriously you need to work on your approach here.

And no "Something cannot be created from nothing" is not a law of physics. What one needs is conservation of energy. That is a law of physics. You really should read Krauss's book or watch the video. He explains that concept rather well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It might be helpful for Creationists to see the other hypotheses you mention.

I could link various hypotheses. Most of the differences are in the details. I doubt if it would do much good.

 

[GodsGrace101]

But we know how evolution works, and it's not programmed in.

It's scientists' job to explain how animals can change from one thing to another, and it's the job of non-scientists who want to discuss the issue to pay attention to what the scientists are saying.

Both.

I'd agree with you but the problem is that no ALL scientists believe in Darwinian evolution.

From what I can understand EVERY scientist in all fields of science believes that changes occur in a species...small changes that take a long amount of time.

I was watching some testing being done here in Italy that seems to prove that an octopus can learn...something that had been denied till now...they believe this is due to evolution. On a Nova channel ... very interesting.

What not all science can agree on is us coming from a single celled organism....so that leaves me free to believe what I will....

Right now I believe in ID,,,we'll see what the future brings.

 

[Tinker Grey]

What not all science can agree on is us coming from a single celled organism

Well, not all scientists can agree on intelligent design, so ...

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'd agree with you but the problem is that no ALL scientists believe in Darwinian evolution.

From what I can understand EVERY scientist in all fields of science believes that changes occur in a species...small changes that take a long amount of time.

I was watching some testing being done here in Italy that seems to prove that an octopus can learn...something that had been denied till now...they believe this is due to evolution. On a Nova channel ... very interesting.

What not all science can agree on is us coming from a single celled organism....so that leaves me free to believe what I will....

Right now I believe in ID,,,we'll see what the future brings.

That is a poor excuse to believe what one will. And you can believe whatever you want, but some beliefs cannot be supported by rational reasoning. That is the problem with ID. There is no scientific evidence for the concept. ID was largely created as creationism with a cheap lab coat on. Have you looked into the Dover Trial? It was where the "ID" that was being attempted to be taught in schools was shown to be religion and not science at all.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Not as stated, no. There is a law of the conservation of energy, although it's not clear whether that applies to the universe itself or not.

I think I need to explain what NOTHING means....!

Energy. Energy doesn't go away,,,it just changes to something different.

Where does energy come from?

See...I go all the way to the beginning --- there either was ALWAYS something, or , something caused all we see to happen.

If there was always something---what created it?
Energy is an "it"...where did it come from?

If everything came into being...the same question applies: What sparked it to come into being?

WHAT caused the big bang? Where did all that heat come from? What created that mass?

Too many questions for many to accept that they just started somehow. This is why I say that it's easier to understand that a supreme being started it...or sparked it.

To some here this sounds like believing in magic...
To me it sounds like magic to believe that all this comes from "nothing" .... kind of like REALLY pulling a real rabbit out of an empty hat with no tricks involved. Is it possible?

 

[GodsGrace101]

As a Christian you should try to avoid specific activity. No one is prefect, guess what? Not even me. What you did amounted to breaking the Ninth Commandment which is not just a ban on lying. It is a ban on making false statements about others. If you say something about someone else and it is not true, but you believed it that statement is still false. It is still a bearing of false witness. And so is your claim of my being disingenuous. Seriously you need to work on your approach here.

And no "Something cannot be created from nothing" is not a law of physics. What one needs is conservation of energy. That is a law of physics. You really should read Krauss's book or watch the video. He explains that concept rather well.

Regarding the 9th commandment....
You don't know theology do you?
If you commit a sin, but don't know it's a sin...
Is it a sin?

Maybe Krauss would like to take me to court for
defamation of character?

Science is not desperate to prove that something could come from nothing because the fact that the universe had A START goes against everything science believed till about the second half of the 20 century.

This is a fact.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Not as stated, no. There is a law of the conservation of energy, although it's not clear whether that applies to the universe itself or not.

What is the law of conservation of energy?

It seems to me that science is having such a problem with this something from nothing business that MANY ideas are coming forth..here's one more, which I'm sure you know about...

 

[GodsGrace101]

That is a poor excuse to believe what one will. And you can believe whatever you want, but some beliefs cannot be supported by rational reasoning. That is the problem with ID. There is no scientific evidence for the concept. ID was largely created as creationism with a cheap lab coat on. Have you looked into the Dover Trial? It was where the "ID" that was being attempted to be taught in schools was shown to be religion and not science at all.

Here's what I'm looking into right now.

I looked into the God question about 35 years ago and I do believe God exists...whatever that God may be.

And look who's introducing Krauss...not that I think there's anything wrong with it - the other side does the same...

 

[GodsGrace101]

Well, not all scientists can agree on intelligent design, so ...

All Christians believe in God.

Not all scientists believe in any one particular theory of how things got started....

 

[Tinker Grey]

Not all scientists believe in any one particular theory of how things got started....

How does that suggest that believing the minority view (ID) is a good idea?

 

[Steve Petersen]

I think I need to explain what NOTHING means....!

Energy. Energy doesn't go away,,,it just changes to something different.

Where does energy come from?

See...I go all the way to the beginning --- there either was ALWAYS something, or , something caused all we see to happen.

If there was always something---what created it?
Energy is an "it"...where did it come from?

If everything came into being...the same question applies: What sparked it to come into being?

WHAT caused the big bang? Where did all that heat come from? What created that mass?

Too many questions for many to accept that they just started somehow. This is why I say that it's easier to understand that a supreme being started it...or sparked it.

To some here this sounds like believing in magic...
To me it sounds like magic to believe that all this comes from "nothing" .... kind of like REALLY pulling a real rabbit out of an empty hat with no tricks involved. Is it possible?

The Law of Conservation of Energy only applies to closed systems.

 

[sfs]

I'd agree with you but the problem is that no ALL scientists believe in Darwinian evolution.

Leave out the "Darwinian" part -- if it means anything, it means something technical that's not relevant. I think the question is, do scientists accept common descent?

What not all science can agree on is us coming from a single celled organism....so that leaves me free to believe what I will....

What I'm telling you is that your statement here is false. While there are no doubt scientists who don't accept common descent, "science" is unanimous on the subject. Literally no scientists are publishing scientific studies arguing against common descent. No scientists are conducting studies undermining common descent. It simply is not an open scientific question. You are of course free to believe whatever you like -- but if you believe that science is equivocal on this issue, you're believing a falsehood.

 

[GodsGrace101]

How does that suggest that believing the minority view (ID) is a good idea?

Is that what you meant??

I said
↑
What not all science can agree on is us coming from a single celled organism


You said

Well, not all scientists can agree on intelligent design, so ...

I'm not saying I believe the majority....
I believe what I think to be correct....
I didn't understand your reply.

 

[GodsGrace101]

The Law of Conservation of Energy only applies to closed systems.

Is the universe a closed system?

 

[VirOptimus]

Is that what you meant??

I said
↑
What not all science can agree on is us coming from a single celled organism


You said

Well, not all scientists can agree on intelligent design, so ...

I'm not saying I believe the majority....
I believe what I think to be correct....
I didn't understand your reply.

Thats because you are in error. You simply are ignorant about the science, i.e. physical reality.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Leave out the "Darwinian" part -- if it means anything, it means something technical that's not relevant. I think the question is, do scientists accept common descent?

What I'm telling you is that your statement here is false. While there are no doubt scientists who don't accept common descent, "science" is unanimous on the subject. Literally no scientists are publishing scientific studies arguing against common descent. No scientists are conducting studies undermining common descent. It simply is not an open scientific question. You are of course free to believe whatever you like -- but if you believe that science is equivocal on this issue, you're believing a falsehood.

OK so you're saying that all science believes that WE originate from a one celled organism...

Then I listen to Meyers or Tour and they're scientists and they don't agree...so do they have an agenda?