Fossil Challenge for Evolutionists

[Subduction Zone]

You say "invoking a god" like we're back in the caveman days.

Christians don't INVOKE a god...they believe in GOD,,,probably the God that DID create the universe we see around us.

And as to chemistry...he's not hero of mine, but Dr. Tours is a Chemist and he DOES say that the ingredients of life could not have come together by chance.

I seem to be the one saying we should all slow down since we cannot know how we came to be...it's the science believers that are so sure God does not exist.

Of course they do. They are merely a little more subtle, well some of them, when they do so.

And Dr. Tours does not do any work in abiogenesis. Worse yet some of his claims have been refuted. The problem is that he looks at today's incredibly complex life, in which even the simplest of cells has a history of over three billion years of evolution to what the first life would have looked like. For examplein this article:

https://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/

He makes this claim:

" Just the lipid bilayer (which itself surrounds thousands of nanosystems) is beyond our ability to synthesize."

I am not an expert but he is assuming that the modern cell wall had to be the original one. Why a bilayer? A single layer will suffice, it is not as secure, it is not as durable. But when there is no competing life there is not a great need for those traits. Here is an article that explains how simple cell walls will form naturally:

Szostak Lab: Research

One of the classic errors of those that deny abiogenesis is to use modern day life that has had three billion years of evolution as a form to base their arguments upon. The very earliest of life would have been incredibly more simple. It also would not be able to compete with modern life at all. One question that people ask is why life has not risen several times. And the answer is that once life gets established and begins to evolve the forerunners of life get quickly consumed by life that already exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The above has been done.
And I did say they are NOT my gurus...just the first names that come to mind...
There are scientists that are abandoning the idea of proving evolution...this cannot be denied.

And I never did get an answer about the Cambrian Explosion. I'm not expecting one either because there is none.

I never saw a question about the Cambrian Explosion, though I have asked for I think twice already now. If you don't ask a question there is of course no way that you will get an answer.


But in case you don't ask I can tell you ahead of time that there is no problem with the Cambrian Explosion.

 

[xianghua]

What you actually said was "a new complex trait (such as new organ)".

if i said "such as" isnt that mean that other options are possible too?

 

[xianghua]

You might enjoy this video.

yep. i think that i already listened to it (or a part of it). thanks.

 

[xianghua]

Literally no scientists are publishing scientific studies arguing against common descent.

what about these papers ?:

https://www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's my understanding that quantum mechanics to not help Krauss' theory of something coming from nothing --- this is what he's trying to convince us non-scientists of,,,or, at least, he's trying to find things in the universe that we have not seen yet to explain HOW we got here from a nothingness state.

No, not really. The physics behind Krauss's universe from 'nothing' is based on quantum mechanics within the constraints of General Relativity. It's not Krauss's theory per-se, plenty of work has been done on generating universes, particularly following Steinhardt, Guth, and Vilenkin's inflation hypotheses and 'eternal inflation'. Work on the idea that spacetime is emergent from a more fundamental description is also an active field, for example, Loop Quantum Gravity.

The motivation for his book was the discovery of 'dark energy' (which drives the accelerating expansion of the universe) which he was involved in, and which provides empirical support for the 'universe from nothing' idea he describes, and his desire to expand on a lecture he gave in 2009 about this and other discoveries in theoretical physics.

General Relativity seems to be holding up. I've always admired Einstein.

It's superb, as far as it goes; but it's known to be incomplete - it fails in extreme situations such as black holes. Quantum mechanics is thought to be the more fundamental theory, but a complete quantum theory of gravity hasn't yet been found.

What I find interesting is this disorder you speak of and the laws of thermodynamics. From what I understand some Christian scientists say that it's exactly the 2nd law of thermodynamics that proves there's a power holding everything up. If things are becoming more disorderly, they claim,,,then why are they renewing themselves and things just keep continuing on....
They use this argument to show that God exists.
I don't really know if it's valid.

It's not valid. The differential between low and high entropy (disorder) gives rise to energy gradients, which tend to dissipate to reach thermal equilibrium. This tends to drive the emergence of structures that maximise the dissipation - a simple analogy is fluid flow, which is smooth and laminar at low energies, but when the flow rate exceeds a certain level, the excess energy drives the production of turbulence and vortices, more complex structures that increase the energy dissipation.

The initial stages of the expansion of the universe were too energetic for ordered structures to form, but when things had calmed down a bit, complex dissipative systems began to emerge - planets, star systems, galaxies, etc. Complex chemistry, including the emergence of life, is also highly dissipative, so tends to increase at this stage. In the long term, as entropy approaches a maximum, energy gradients will peter out and the universe will approach thermal equilibrium (stars will burn out, black holes will evaporate). Somewhere along this journey, the energy gradients won't be sufficient to drive or maintain complexity, and complex dissipative structures will disappear.

You've reduced God to an idea that could be helpful n some cases...like in social order and psychology -- you know,,,man made God up so we could "use" Him.

That's where the evidence points. There's an interesting article in New Scientist on an analysis of the history of religions and their role in societies over time, including when “Big Gods” were invented: Is religion good or bad for humanity?

I think we should be ready to accept whatever we find.

Yup; and what we find so far points to religions and gods being human inventions.

I DO say that we should be ready to accept a god of some type.

I think Hume had it right in the 18th century, "A wise man apportions his beliefs according to the evidence". The 'Sagan standard', "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is its corollary.

Maybe He's the electricity running through space? Who can know for sure?'

Huh? Why would we call electricity 'God'? why call any physical phenomenon 'God'?

That makes me curious to know just what you mean by 'a God of some type' - can you explain?

 

[46AND2]

That's where the evidence points. There's an interesting article in New Scientist on an analysis of the history of religions and their role in societies over time, including when “Big Gods” were invented: Is religion good or bad for humanity?

Darn. Paywall. Wanted to read that.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

if i said "such as" isnt that mean that other options are possible too?

Sure, but when you read the thread in context you moved the goalposts. That's another favourite trick of creationists - take things out of context and make erroneous claims.

 

[GodsGrace101]

No, not really. The physics behind Krauss's universe from 'nothing' is based on quantum mechanics within the constraints of General Relativity. It's not Krauss's theory per-se, plenty of work has been done on generating universes, particularly following Steinhardt, Guth, and Vilenkin's inflation hypotheses and 'eternal inflation'. Work on the idea that spacetime is emergent from a more fundamental description is also an active field, for example, Loop Quantum Gravity.

The motivation for his book was the discovery of 'dark energy' (which drives the accelerating expansion of the universe) which he was involved in, and which provides empirical support for the 'universe from nothing' idea he describes, and his desire to expand on a lecture he gave in 2009 about this and other discoveries in theoretical physics.

It's superb, as far as it goes; but it's known to be incomplete - it fails in extreme situations such as black holes. Quantum mechanics is thought to be the more fundamental theory, but a complete quantum theory of gravity hasn't yet been found.

It's not valid. The differential between low and high entropy (disorder) gives rise to energy gradients, which tend to dissipate to reach thermal equilibrium. This tends to drive the emergence of structures that maximise the dissipation - a simple analogy is fluid flow, which is smooth and laminar at low energies, but when the flow rate exceeds a certain level, the excess energy drives the production of turbulence and vortices, more complex structures that increase the energy dissipation.

The initial stages of the expansion of the universe were too energetic for ordered structures to form, but when things had calmed down a bit, complex dissipative systems began to emerge - planets, star systems, galaxies, etc. Complex chemistry, including the emergence of life, is also highly dissipative, so tends to increase at this stage. In the long term, as entropy approaches a maximum, energy gradients will peter out and the universe will approach thermal equilibrium (stars will burn out, black holes will evaporate). Somewhere along this journey, the energy gradients won't be sufficient to drive or maintain complexity, and complex dissipative structures will disappear.

That's where the evidence points. There's an interesting article in New Scientist on an analysis of the history of religions and their role in societies over time, including when “Big Gods” were invented: Is religion good or bad for humanity?

Yup; and what we find so far points to religions and gods being human inventions.

I think Hume had it right in the 18th century, "A wise man apportions his beliefs according to the evidence". The 'Sagan standard', "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is its corollary.


Huh? Why would we call electricity 'God'? why call any physical phenomenon 'God'?

That makes me curious to know just what you mean by 'a God of some type' - can you explain?

We Christians like to believe that God is a personal God...Jesus was a real person that really lived and for which there's evidence as to the resurrection. You can believe it or not --- I'm not really here to discuss God.

And, OK, in that sense God is personal.
But God is also a force,,a "spirit" which we cannot really know. No matter where we go with scientific theories and analysis and proofs,,,we still have the problem that at some point everything had to "start".

I've said before that this problem, as far as I can understand, did not exist before because we always believed that the universe always existed. It's only after the Big Bang theory that the problem has surfaced precisely because scientists now state that the univers did NOT always exist -- so where did it come from? Hence Krauss' idea and all those that agree with him.

What I'm saying is that whatever STARTED the universe, or multi-verse, or whatever it'll turn out to be...THIS could be called God.

I'm recently learning about the information that undergirds everything... I've been trying to explain this but can't in scientific terms.

This morning I watched this very interesting YouTube video on this very topic.

What do you think of it? This one has the word "God" in it, which is what attracted me to it, but it seems like a new idea that many are looking into --sans the god reason...

 

[GodsGrace101]

Sure, but when you read the thread in context you moved the goalposts. That's another favourite trick of creationists - take things out of context and make erroneous claims.

How is that a "TRICK"?
First of all the other member says he doesn't speak English as a first language so I doubt he knows what moving the goal post means since I hardly understand it myself but have only an idea.

Second of all how does one "trick" a knowledgeable scientist?

A person of knowledge cannot be tricked.

He's just talking....and "such as" is an example...and there COULD be more examples.
We say "such as" so that we don't have to list each and every example....

 

[Subduction Zone]

what about these papers ?:

https://www.discovery.org/id/peer-review/

Since creationists have both made their own fake peer review, and sometimes rely on the vanity press the bar has the be set a little bit higher. One must find an article in a well respected professional peer reviewed journal. That will s still quite low. Thousands of scientific articles are published every year and yet ID supporters can't seem to be among those scientists.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Since creationists have both made their own fake peer review, and sometimes rely on the vanity press the bar has the be set a little bit higher. One must find an article in a well respected professional peer reviewed journal. That will s still quite low. Thousands of scientific articles are published every year and yet ID supporters can't seem to be among those scientists.

LOL
Did you ever hear of "prejudice"?

Kind of like the news.
CNN just seems to dislike those of the right.
Fox just seems to dislike those of the left.

Looks like they each had to get their very own station....
It does not make the news of CNN or Fox any less true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL
Did you ever hear of "prejudice"?

Kind of like the news.
CNN just seems to dislike those of the right.
Fox just seems to dislike those of the left.

Looks like they each had to get their very own station....
It does not make the news of CNN or Fox any less true.

Who are you trying to claim is prejudiced? My statement was factual. Creationists and ID believers have created their own fake "peer reviewed" sources. They do use the vanity press. Or are you trying to claim that real peer review is prejudiced? They may be in some ways, but they also know that an improperly rejected creationist paper would be a strong tool for creationists so they avoid that.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Who are you trying to claim is prejudiced? My statement was factual. Creationists and ID believers have created their own fake "peer reviewed" sources. They do use the vanity press. Or are you trying to claim that real peer review is prejudiced? They may be in some ways, but they also know that an improperly rejected creationist paper would be a strong tool for creationists so they avoid that.

I mean it in a human nature kind of way.
I feel, after having been on this thread, that there's a war going on between evolutionists and creationists.
I used to teach our faith to kids and I taught them (and was told to) that science and faith go hand in hand because one tells us HOW and one tells us WHY.

So, what I'm saying is because of this tension between the two sides, I'd say that even if the creationist scientist's paper was fully valid, it might still not be welcomed by these journals YOU trust.

That's what I meant. It may be so, and probably is, and it might not be so. I just don't know enough to make a judgement. it did remind me of news stations that tend to report only what they deem to be on THEIR side of the fence.

 

[GodsGrace101]

@Subduction Zone

BTW, did you see that link to a YouTube video I posted just a few posts above?

It's speaking about the information I unsuccessfully tried to speak to when I first came on board here.

Cells have information...
where is this information coming from?
If you do watch it, please comment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I mean it in a human nature kind of way.
I feel, after having been on this thread, that there's a war going on between evolutionists and creationists.
I used to teach our faith to kids and I taught them (and was told to) that science and faith go hand in hand because one tells us HOW and one tells us WHY.

So, what I'm saying is because of this tension between the two sides, I'd say that even if the creationist scientist's paper was fully valid, it might still not be welcomed by these journals YOU trust.

That's what I meant. It may be so, and probably is, and it might not be so. I just don't know enough to make a judgement. it did remind me of news stations that tend to report only what they deem to be on THEIR side of the fence.

Well respected professional journals have earned that trust. Creationist journals often publish work of so low of a quality that a high school student could refute it.

The problem is that what creationists do is not science. In fact most professional creationist institutions require their workers to swear not to use the scientific method.

Lately I have noticed that the biggest difference between creationists and those that accept evolution is that creationists only want to believe. Those that accept the sciences want to know. That means if the evidence did actually support creationism it would be accepted by scientists. And since creationists only want to believe it does not matter how much evidence there is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone

BTW, did you see that link to a YouTube video I posted just a few posts above?

It's speaking about the information I unsuccessfully tried to speak to when I first came on board here.

Cells have information...
where is this information coming from?
If you do watch it, please comment.

I might watch it, but I have probably heard the argument already. Creationists tend to use undefined terms to make their circular arguments.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I might watch it, but I have probably heard the argument already. Creationists tend to use undefined terms to make their circular arguments.

I can't say for sure...but I think scientists you might agree with are beginning to think about this information thing.

I agree with your above post.
Some creationists are very closed minded and can even believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

 

[Speedwell]

I mean it in a human nature kind of way.
I feel, after having been on this thread, that there's a war going on between evolutionists and creationists.

If there is a "war" it's not about the existence of God, it's about the Bible.

I used to teach our faith to kids and I taught them (and was told to) that science and faith go hand in hand because one tells us HOW and one tells us WHY.

Which is fine. I wonder how many of your creationist colleagues will allow science to tell them "how." The whole point of creationism seems to be that the Bible tells us "how" and science is wrong about it, no?

So, what I'm saying is because of this tension between the two sides, I'd say that even if the creationist scientist's paper was fully valid, it might still not be welcomed by these journals YOU trust.

I'm not sure that it is even possible to write a valid scientific paper about biblical creationism. Certainly I have never seen one.

 

[Colter]

We Christians like to believe that God is a personal God...Jesus was a real person that really lived and for which there's evidence as to the resurrection. You can believe it or not --- I'm not really here to discuss God.

And, OK, in that sense God is personal.
But God is also a force,,a "spirit" which we cannot really know. No matter where we go with scientific theories and analysis and proofs,,,we still have the problem that at some point everything had to "start".

I've said before that this problem, as far as I can understand, did not exist before because we always believed that the universe always existed. It's only after the Big Bang theory that the problem has surfaced precisely because scientists now state that the univers did NOT always exist -- so where did it come from? Hence Krauss' idea and all those that agree with him.

What I'm saying is that whatever STARTED the universe, or multi-verse, or whatever it'll turn out to be...THIS could be called God.

I'm recently learning about the information that undergirds everything... I've been trying to explain this but can't in scientific terms.

This morning I watched this very interesting YouTube video on this very topic.

What do you think of it? This one has the word "God" in it, which is what attracted me to it, but it seems like a new idea that many are looking into --sans the god reason...

The eternal isle of paradise is a material reality as well as spiritual. It is the source of the material universes, even the pattern.