The Demise of Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

Could this fish-toad be the result of Creaton? God can create whatever He like. I know there may be evidences to show it appeared to have evolved from fish to toad, but it could also be due to creation, isn't?

It could be. Is God honest? Does he lie? It sounds like you are saying "God could have lied and planted false evidence". If God is honest then evolution is a fact.

 

[Kylie]

Thank you for taking timebto produce a detailed answer, i will take time to read and watch the video later.

But first , i have a question. Am i right to say you believe specie can cross over and evolve into another?

Previously there are couple of people in this thread who said there is no cross over in evolution.

If you are asking if a dog and a cat can interbreed, then the answer is no. Any time two different species are able to produce offspring, it is two species who are extremely closely related, and even then the differences generally result in an offspring that is sterile. Inter-species mating really just does not work.

If you are asking if modern birds could eventually evolve into modern dolphins, then the answer is most definitely no. Modern species don't evolve into other modern species. They may eventually evolve to fit the same niche as a different modern species, but it will take many generations and there will still be big differences. An example of this is dolphins, which evolved to fit a similar niche to sharks, but they are still very different to sharks.

 

[Ophiolite]

Here is another member reading my mind and determining whether I am serious in my responses or not. I think I have said all I am going to say in this thread - so take it or leave it - that is your choice.

I don't have to read your mind to determine your seriousness. I can read your posts.

In a serious discussion about a basic scientific concept we do not rely upon articles in the popular press. We exchange citations from peer reviewed articles from reputable scientific journals and present well structured arguments using evidence derived from similar sources. It is disrespectful to float out lightweight material in response to a serious request.

Your choice is, in essence, to declare that you have no serious support for your original assertion. That accords with my expectation, though I had hoped you would bring more than a damp cloth to a gun fight.

 

[ruthiesea]

Here are the choices as I see them, based on nothing but the thoughts that go through my (alleged) mind and assumes the existence go G-d:
1. At the time of the Big Bang G-d created a universe containing all the matter and energy that would result in the universe and in life as we know it today. Then He played golf for 13.5 billion years. No further interference was required;
2. G-d created the universe. He guides its development as He deems necessary; or
3. G-d is a micromanager overseeing everything that happens in the universe.

Personally, I hope that it’s number 2, which still allows for free will and still allows us to look to a higher power the whom we can appeal.

 

[Kylie]

Here are the choices as I see them, based on nothing but the thoughts that go through my (alleged) mind and assumes the existence go G-d:
1. At the time of the Big Bang G-d created a universe containing all the matter and energy that would result in the universe and in life as we know it today. Then He played golf for 13.5 billion years. No further interference was required;
2. G-d created the universe. He guides its development as He deems necessary; or
3. G-d is a micromanager overseeing everything that happens in the universe.

Personally, I hope that it’s number 2, which still allows for free will and still allows us to look to a higher power the whom we can appeal.

If they are the only options, then I think only 1 could work.

If 2 were correct, then we would see every now and then things that violate the laws of the universe as God steps in to take action to make sure that things unfold the way he wants them too.

And if 3 were correct, then there's no reason to expect to find any consistent laws of the universe at all if God is responsible for every little thing. Number 3 would also tend to eliminate any chance of us having free will.

 

[Paul James]

If they are the only options, then I think only 1 could work.

If 2 were correct, then we would see every now and then things that violate the laws of the universe as God steps in to take action to make sure that things unfold the way he wants them too.

And if 3 were correct, then there's no reason to expect to find any consistent laws of the universe at all if God is responsible for every little thing. Number 3 would also tend to eliminate any chance of us having free will.

There are some problems with the Big Bang theory.

1. Explosions have resulted in chaos and disorder, not order and laws of physics.
2. Explosions need to have existing material to enable an explosion to take place.
3. The heat generated by an explosion makes everything total sterile and devoid of life.
4. If we observe the results of the Hiroshima atom bomb explosion, we see vaporization and destruction, with nothing being created from it.
5. Explosions don't spontaneously happen. Someone has to light the fuse, or create a spark for it to happen.

Because the Big Bang theory involves an explosion resulting from absolutely nothing, resulting in a created universe with set laws of physics, containing life, and spontaneously happening, then it can't be viable at all. The scientific study of explosions disproves that the Big Bang could ever have happened.

If, according to the latest theory, that there was an original amount of energy available to create the Big Bang, where did that energy come from? If right at the beginning there was absolutely nothing, that energy had to come from somewhere, it could not have just appeared like magic.

And how did even a bare spark of life come from a totally sterile environment caused by the enormous heat and energy required to enable such a gigantic explosion as to create a whole universe?

No one has ever been able to replicate life in a sterile laboratory environment. Life can only come from life.

It is also interesting to note that the gas clouds observed through the telescopes could more likely have come as the aftermath of supernova where stars have died, rather than gas clouds coming together to form new stars, which has never been observed directly at any time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are some problems with the Big Bang theory.

1. Explosions have resulted in chaos and disorder, not order and laws of physics.

Instant fail. It was not an explosion. The rest is just as bad.

2. Explosions need to have existing material to enable an explosion to take place.
3. The heat generated by an explosion makes everything total sterile and devoid of life.
4. If we observe the results of the Hiroshima atom bomb explosion, we see vaporization and destruction, with nothing being created from it.
5. Explosions don't spontaneously happen. Someone has to light the fuse, or create a spark for it to happen.

Because the Big Bang theory involves an explosion resulting from absolutely nothing, resulting in a created universe with set laws of physics, containing life, and spontaneously happening, then it can't be viable at all. The scientific study of explosions disproves that the Big Bang could ever have happened.

If, according to the latest theory, that there was an original amount of energy available to create the Big Bang, where did that energy come from? If right at the beginning there was absolutely nothing, that energy had to come from somewhere, it could not have just appeared like magic.

And how did even a bare spark of life come from a totally sterile environment caused by the enormous heat and energy required to enable such a gigantic explosion as to create a whole universe?

No one has ever been able to replicate life in a sterile laboratory environment. Life can only come from life.

It is also interesting to note that the gas clouds observed through the telescopes could more likely have come as the aftermath of supernova where stars have died, rather than gas clouds coming together to form new stars, which has never been observed directly at any time.

Again, if you don't want to make yourself look foolish I would suggest at least learning the basics.

 

[Kylie]

There are some problems with the Big Bang theory.

1. Explosions have resulted in chaos and disorder, not order and laws of physics.
2. Explosions need to have existing material to enable an explosion to take place.
3. The heat generated by an explosion makes everything total sterile and devoid of life.
4. If we observe the results of the Hiroshima atom bomb explosion, we see vaporization and destruction, with nothing being created from it.
5. Explosions don't spontaneously happen. Someone has to light the fuse, or create a spark for it to happen.

Because the Big Bang theory involves an explosion resulting from absolutely nothing, resulting in a created universe with set laws of physics, containing life, and spontaneously happening, then it can't be viable at all. The scientific study of explosions disproves that the Big Bang could ever have happened.

If, according to the latest theory, that there was an original amount of energy available to create the Big Bang, where did that energy come from? If right at the beginning there was absolutely nothing, that energy had to come from somewhere, it could not have just appeared like magic.

I'm not aware of any single scientist in the world who claimed that the Big Bang was just a really big explosion of the same kind that we have seen on Earth. Do you know of a scientist who has made such a claim? If so, could you provide a source?

And how did even a bare spark of life come from a totally sterile environment caused by the enormous heat and energy required to enable such a gigantic explosion as to create a whole universe?

Well, now that's just a whole different topic altogether, isn't it?

No one has ever been able to replicate life in a sterile laboratory environment. Life can only come from life.

Define life.

It is also interesting to note that the gas clouds observed through the telescopes could more likely have come as the aftermath of supernova where stars have died, rather than gas clouds coming together to form new stars, which has never been observed directly at any time.

Do you think those two things would look the same? That's like saying a scrapyard filled with old smashed cars looks the same as a factory where cars are made.

 

[Paul James]

I'm not aware of any single scientist in the world who claimed that the Big Bang was just a really big explosion of the same kind that we have seen on Earth. Do you know of a scientist who has made such a claim? If so, could you provide a source?

What do you think the Big Bang was that could have provided the enormous forces to spread out a whole universe, still expanding at stupendous speed? It must have happened in the centre of the universe, which is too far away for any of us to see, even through the Hubble telescope. If it wasn't an explosion, then what was it? Got any ideas? All sounds like science fantasy to me.

Well, now that's just a whole different topic altogether, isn't it?

Yes, but an interesting one.

Define life.

Now you're getting deep! Here is the dictionary meaning:

1. the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
   "the origins of life"
   synonyms: existence, being, living, animation, aliveness, animateness; More
   
   • 
     
     
2. 2.
   the existence of an individual human being or animal.
   "a disaster that claimed the lives of 266 people"
   synonyms: person, human being, individual, mortal, soul, creature
   "more than 1,500 lives were lost in the accident"

Do you think those two things would look the same? That's like saying a scrapyard filled with old smashed cars looks the same as a factory where cars are made.

We don't know exactly how new stars are born, because no one has ever seen it happen, even through the Hubble Telescope. The only theory of it exists in a computer simulation to try and show how it might have happened. But it is just a guess by view an actual supernova and reversing the process in the computer in the hope that it might show how the star was born. But without actual observation, it remains a simple guess. We can go to a car factory and see how they are made, and so we can know the difference. But we can't go out into the universe and observe a star being born.

 

[Gene2memE]

What do you think the Big Bang was that could have provided the enormous forces to spread out a whole universe, still expanding at stupendous speed?

That's what the Big Bang is - a description of the initial rapid inflation of space-time and the resulting rounds of creation of various states of matter.

What caused this is very much still an open question. It may be that we will never know. Or that we require totally new understandings of the physics of what happens at very, very small scales and very, very high levels of energy.

It must have happened in the centre of the universe,

Based on our current understanding of the universe, there is no centre to the universe. Or, alternatively, everywhere is the centre of the universe.

That's a difficult concept to get your head around, but the universe is not expanding out from a central point in space. Instead, eveverything is expanding away from everything else (and not at a uniform rate).

If it wasn't an explosion, then what was it? Got any ideas? All sounds like science fantasy to me.

The Wikipedia article on the Big Bang provides a nice overview, without getting into any of the math.

I should also note that your personal incredulity about an idea does not invalidate it.

We don't know exactly how new stars are born,

Yes, we do. (For a given definition of "exactly")

because no one has ever seen it happen, even through the Hubble Telescope.

There's lots and lots and lots of images we've captured of stellar formation form the earliest stages through to collapse. That's the thing about space, there are a LOT of stars to look at.

 

[Kylie]

What do you think the Big Bang was that could have provided the enormous forces to spread out a whole universe, still expanding at stupendous speed? It must have happened in the centre of the universe, which is too far away for any of us to see, even through the Hubble telescope. If it wasn't an explosion, then what was it? Got any ideas? All sounds like science fantasy to me.

That's because you don't understand what the scientists are actually saying about it.

It's not an explosion that expanded into the universe. It IS the universe.

Yes, but an interesting one.

But off topic.

Now you're getting deep! Here is the dictionary meaning:

1. the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
   "the origins of life"
   synonyms: existence, being, living, animation, aliveness, animateness; More
   • 
     
2. 2.
   the existence of an individual human being or animal.
   "a disaster that claimed the lives of 266 people"
   synonyms: person, human being, individual, mortal, soul, creature
   "more than 1,500 lives were lost in the accident"

If I find a particular thing and I want to know if it is alive, what test do I perform?

We don't know exactly how new stars are born, because no one has ever seen it happen, even through the Hubble Telescope. The only theory of it exists in a computer simulation to try and show how it might have happened. But it is just a guess by view an actual supernova and reversing the process in the computer in the hope that it might show how the star was born. But without actual observation, it remains a simple guess. We can go to a car factory and see how they are made, and so we can know the difference. But we can't go out into the universe and observe a star being born.

So if you don't know how it happens, you can't really say, "the gas clouds observed through the telescopes could more likely have come as the aftermath of supernova where stars have died, rather than gas clouds coming together to form new stars," can you?

In any case, we can see the kinds of areas where we see very young stars, and we can see that those areas all have similarities. And we can develop computer models based on the laws of the universe that match observations as well. So we'd need some pretty good evidence to show that those models are way off.

 

[Paul James]

That's because you don't understand what the scientists are actually saying about it.

It's not an explosion that expanded into the universe. It IS the universe.



But off topic.



If I find a particular thing and I want to know if it is alive, what test do I perform?



So if you don't know how it happens, you can't really say, "the gas clouds observed through the telescopes could more likely have come as the aftermath of supernova where stars have died, rather than gas clouds coming together to form new stars," can you?

In any case, we can see the kinds of areas where we see very young stars, and we can see that those areas all have similarities. And we can develop computer models based on the laws of the universe that match observations as well. So we'd need some pretty good evidence to show that those models are way off.

Logically, if it is big bang, it should be at a central point with the universe expanding in all directions from it like ripples in a pond. But if there is no centre, and it is expanding, then it must be expanding from a particular point forward away direct in front and angular away at each edge; sort of like shining a torch where the light from it shines straight ahead and at an angle, but not sideways or rear. So the big bang might be more like firing a blunderbuss where the shot spreads out forward from the flared barrel.

But the question remains, what set it off?

Here is how I see it according to the popular theory:
First there was nothing,
Then there was this great mass of energy appear out of nowhere.
Then the great "blunderbuss" was loaded and fired.
The universe expands, flaring out forward from that point as a great mass of hot gases.
Somehow, these gases start spinning around, forming stars and planets.
One of these is our sun, and somehow, our world is at the exact position where plant, animal, sea and human life can exist.
On our world is a pool of primordial soup, and a bolt of lightning hits it and life magically appears as a small microbe that gradually turns into a fish, then crawls out of the pool and turns into a land animal, and so on.

 

[VirOptimus]

Logically, if it is big bang, it should be at a central point with the universe expanding in all directions from it like ripples in a pond. But if there is no centre, and it is expanding, then it must be expanding from a particular point forward away direct in front and angular away at each edge; sort of like shining a torch where the light from it shines straight ahead and at an angle, but not sideways or rear. So the big bang might be more like firing a blunderbuss where the shot spreads out forward from the flared barrel.

But the question remains, what set it off?

Here is how I see it according to the popular theory:
First there was nothing,
Then there was this great mass of energy appear out of nowhere.
Then the great "blunderbuss" was loaded and fired.
The universe expands, flaring out forward from that point as a great mass of hot gases.
Somehow, these gases start spinning around, forming stars and planets.
One of these is our sun, and somehow, our world is at the exact position where plant, animal, sea and human life can exist.
On our world is a pool of primordial soup, and a bolt of lightning hits it and life magically appears as a small microbe that gradually turns into a fish, then crawls out of the pool and turns into a land animal, and so on.

You are woefully ignorant about the big bang. Learn the basics.

 

[Jimmy D]

You are woefully ignorant about the big bang. Learn the basics.

Textbook Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[Shemjaza]

Logically, if it is big bang, it should be at a central point with the universe expanding in all directions from it like ripples in a pond. But if there is no centre, and it is expanding, then it must be expanding from a particular point forward away direct in front and angular away at each edge; sort of like shining a torch where the light from it shines straight ahead and at an angle, but not sideways or rear. So the big bang might be more like firing a blunderbuss where the shot spreads out forward from the flared barrel.

But the question remains, what set it off?

Here is how I see it according to the popular theory:
First there was nothing,
Then there was this great mass of energy appear out of nowhere.
Then the great "blunderbuss" was loaded and fired.
The universe expands, flaring out forward from that point as a great mass of hot gases.
Somehow, these gases start spinning around, forming stars and planets.
One of these is our sun, and somehow, our world is at the exact position where plant, animal, sea and human life can exist.
On our world is a pool of primordial soup, and a bolt of lightning hits it and life magically appears as a small microbe that gradually turns into a fish, then crawls out of the pool and turns into a land animal, and so on.

It's not an expanding cloud in a space... it's the expansion of space itself. That's why everything is expanding, because we are a part of the expanding substance.

 

[Paul James]

You are woefully ignorant about the big bang. Learn the basics.

Ok. Enlighten me.

 

[VirOptimus]

Ok. Enlighten me.

No, I’m not responsible for your education.

 

[Paul James]

No, I’m not responsible for your education.

Oh well...that was a short conversation.

 

[VirOptimus]

Oh well...that was a short conversation.

Well, if you dont wanna learn I cant force you.

 

[sjastro]

Since the Big Bang has been mentioned in an evolution thread with the argument of incredulity of how it is possible for a Universe to be created out of "nothing", the modern science usage of the term "nothing" is not what it seems.
Spacetime or a vacuum can never be totally empty.