Challenge: Is Evolution REALLY a theory in crisis?

[AV1611VET]

Abiogenesis isn't evolution. Astronomy isn't evolution. Geology isn't evolution. Cosmology isn't evolution. Thermodynamics isn't evolution. Most of your lengthy post isn't even about evolution. (And if you want to talk about how stars can't form from gas clouds, go make a new thread and I'll get my cudgel.)

Please don't unless you can be concise and stick to problems in evolutionary theory (if it's not biology it's off-topic).

Post 30 please.

This challenge has been met.

 

[Frank Robert]

1% of reality

 

[Frank Robert]

I never said that premise,

Besides this has gotten way off topic. It's about evolution being in a crisis

You are starting from a belief that evolution is in crisis and a belief in ID.

I'll rephrase what I said.

That something appears designed or belief in intelligent design is not a valid scientific argument against evolution or that evolution is in crisis. Another way to put it: the claim that "evolution is in crisis" is an apologetic claim.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

My point was, there is no need to disprove evolution because it not has been proven. No one proved yet how life comes from non life, because it's simply impossible. You come to forum where people believe in creationism and you tell me what do to. But fine, I'm going to reply with some arguments against evolution. I have already wrote this to someone, but I don't know whether you going to read it.

In 1859, Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, a book that proposed a new theory on how life came to be on planet Earth. This theory would contradict the Bible, which had been the predominant, trusted source of ancient history in the West up until that time. Darwin was strongly influenced by Charles Lyell's The Principles of Geology. Lyell, also influenced by others, reinterpreted geologic history through gradual processes over millions of years, a concept known as uniformitarianism. This view was contrary to catastrophism, which teaches that Noah's flood can explain much of what we find in the geologic record.

In 1858, Antonio Snider-Pellegrini proposed that the continents had moved apart rapidly during Noah's flood, in a catastrophic process. Genesis 1:9 states that God gathered together the waters into one place, and made the dry land appear. What the Bible had stated all along, that the lands were once connected and then split apart, geologists started teaching thousands of years later. The flood was an incredible catastrophe almost beyond what the human mind can comprehend. This is a catastrophic event of unimaginable proportions. Sedimentation on a global cataclysmic, catastrophic scale, burying billions of creatures suddenly in unimaginable amounts of sediment. Look at all the fossils. It's almost like the surface of the Earth screams at us, "Hey, there was a catastrophic event!" If something like that happened, what sort of evidence should that have left behind? Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers laid down by water, all over the Earth! Most of the fossil record is a result of the flood, not millions of years of slow processes. The fossil record documents the reality of the Genesis Flood. It was also a tectonic-catastrophe, large-scale plate motion, migration of the continents by thousands of miles. Which means that all the Atlantic Ocean opened up during the flood, the Indian Ocean opened up during the flood transforming the Earth's surface. It is impossible to walk away from the text thinking that this was some type of local Mesopotamian flood. This was a flood of universal proportion in its destruction of the Earth itself, its destruction of all mankind. The Bible tells us of a worldwide Flood that radically changed the climate and devastated the continents thousands of years before scientists would even propose ice ages. The irony being that these same scientists would confirm the possibility of great global floods on planets like Mars, and yet still deny that a global flood was possible on Earth. You see, the Bible already stated there was a worldwide flood, and they don't want to validate the Bible. They'll come up with any other explanation but the truth.

The secular world says that the big bang occurred 14 billion years ago. Everything was compacted into one spot. It expanded, then the stars formed themselves, and then our sun formed, and in the dust around the sun, the Earth formed. It was a hot molten blob, got covered by water, and then biological evolution happened. But if that's the case, you have any number of problems. According to evolution theory, or at least atheist evolution theory, the big bang created everything, gas clouds went everywhere, and stars contracted from gas clouds out of their gravity. Well, it's impossible for gas clouds to contract out of their gravity because as soon as you get a gas cloud that compressed, it's going heat up. And hot gasses want to expand, and that expansion force is a hundred times or more than the force of gravity. It could never happen. There are all these dog ate my homework stories about how gravity waves from black holes might do a push-pull thing on gas clouds and make this actually happen. But you have a chicken and the egg problem here, because don't black holes come from stars? So you have to get stars in the first place!

There are many, many questions in science that have not been answered. But there are many questions that have been answered. So far, it is the problem for the evolutionist of the questions that have been answered, like the coalescence of the stars, like violating the first law of thermodynamics, that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, the big bang insists that happened at least once. Many people think the universe popped into existence instantly in a big bang, and it happened by itself! Somehow matter has spontaneously come into existence without a prior cause. The first law says that energy is neither created nor destroyed. And equally as valid as the first law is... The second law of thermodynamics, which says things are currently running down, energy is becoming less useful. The useful amount of energy is always decreasing ,and we measure this with a thing called entropy. The entropy is always increasing. It's almost as if the world was wound-up like a clock, and it's been unwinding. The second law would seem to argue...That the universe has not always existed, the material universe has not always existed. But the first law says you could not have a beginning. So, we have this contradiction. We have this tension. Both laws are equally true. And yet both laws, if extrapolated into the past, contradict each other. Physically, the universe has no natural explanation, it doesn't have a physical explanation.

Comets really do have something to say about the age of the solar system. We can divide comets into two groups. We call the short-period comets and long period comets. For short period comets, a couple hundred years, they're all gone. There shouldn't be any left. Long period comets, tens of millions or maybe a hundred million years, but they're all gone again. So for a billions of years solar system, you have a problem, thousands of years, not a problem. We understand that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion and that could power the sun for billions of years. As it produces energy like that, it changes its composition inside and over time it should slowly brighten. And as it does, the Earth would get warmer. Now again, over thousands of years, not a problem. But if go back a couple billion, three billion years or so when life first supposedly developed on the planet, you have a problem because the Earth would have been far colder. It would have been frozen, and nobody thinks that happened. In billions of years, it's a problem, thousands of years, not a problem. In fact, other planets in our solar system testify to a young universe as well. Both the density and magnetic field of Mercury cannot allow for millions of years. In 1984, Russell Humphreys correctly calculated the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune several years before the Voyager 2 satellite would measure them. Humphreys used a vital clue from the Bible, that the universe was made only 6,000 years ago. And when the surface of Venus was mapped in the mid-nineties, volcanoes, craters, mountains, and other features showed the history of the planet was young. Neptune is too hot to be old. Pluto still has nitrogen in its atmosphere. The rings of Saturn and Neptune aren't uniform, as they would be after millions of years.

So, do we trust in the timeline of men, who are repeatedly wrong and having to change their beliefs or do we trust in the Bible, which has never been proven wrong and does not change.

The law of biogenesis that says that all life comes from pre-existing life. And yet evolution says that life can come from non-life. Surprise!
If you just wait long enough. But we see no examples of that today. We can't observe it, we can't repeat it, people just believe it blindly. Anytime they have done these sort of origin of life experiments, where they're trying to take a soup, so to speak, of all these different molecules, add a little bit of lightning... Cook everything together, add a spark, and out comes... Tar. They end up with gunk. They have to do a lot of tweaking to end up with...Amino acids. That's impressive. It's not even meaningful information as far as DNA is concerned. Every evolutionary story starts with the Miller-Urey experiment. The best yields that they've ever gotten was 80% L-amino acids and 20% D-amino acids. That means that every fifth amino acid in a protein series would be lethal to all forms of life on our planet!

The evolutionists try to get away from this problem of chirality. The odds for 250 parts coming together is two times 10 raised to the 476th power. That's going to be a two with 476 zeros following after it. That's the odds for the first cell to come into existence on it's own! The best they've been able to do is the idea that the amino acids assembled themselves on the backs of floating crystals in the ocean. Their schemes and the things they have tried to imagine just don't work. If you take the cell and you poke a hole in it, you have all the components for the cell, and yet no life. They will say, "That's an origin of life issue "and I'm not going deal with that." But you have to deal with it, because there is no point in dealing with any of these other things if you cannot even get an organism in the first place. The problems are exponential. People in the field actually know this, but go along with it anyway because, well, after all, the other disciplines of science are where the real proof is. So, the geologists think that the real proof is with the palaeontologists. The fossil-studiers think the geophysicists have the proof. The geophysicists think it's the astrophysicists that have the proof. Everyone gets to the airport and thinks that somebody else brought the tickets! They would never do this in any other area of their lives. They are denying the obvious because of their starting point that there is no God.

Scientists and medical researchers have learned some incredible things about the brain. Yet they admit they know very little since the brain is so complex. The brain is divided into several parts or sections, each one apparently being responsible for controlling many different functions. For example, here are some of the functions that the frontal lobe (section) controls: behaviour, thought process, problem solving, attention, creative thought, some emotion, intellect, initiative, sense of smell, some eye movements, muscle movements.
Parietal lobe: sense of touch, appreciation of form response to internal actions some language and reading functions some visual functions
The occipital lobe is at the very back of the brain and controls vision and reading.
The temporal lobe: visual memories, some vision pathways, music, fear, some language, some speech some behaviour and emotions
sense of identity.

Then there is the cerebellum at the base of the brain, which controls balance and posture, heart and lungs, and the nerves and muscles that cause blood vessels to constrict or dilate. At the very bottom of the brain is the brain stem that serves as the motor and sensory pathway to the body and face. Already, you can see that the brain is a very powerful, complex, and complicated part of the human body.

The longer researchers study the brain (and they’ve been studying a long time!), the more astounding their discoveries become. With each new insight, they are simply proving that the brain could not have evolved. It had to have been created by God.

As the years go by, they keep uncovering more layers of complexity as to how the brain functions. They have found, for instance, that brain cells (called neurons) talk to each other by sending electrochemical impulses (chemicals and electricity) along thin fibres called axons. Arriving at the end of the axon, the signals come to a gap. The gap is called a synapse. When the signal reaches the synapse junction, a puff of neurotransmitter molecules is released. These molecules then bind to chemical receptor molecules located in the dendrite membrane on the opposite side of the synapse, leading to another neuron. Each synapse contains different types of receptor proteins that affect the firing pattern of a neuron. This amazing interchange is how the brain sends messages throughout your nervous system to control the hundreds of functions of your entire body.

The adult human brain is estimated to contain billions of neurons and from 100-500 trillion synapses. In fact, your cerebral cortex is the thin mantle of grey matter that is about the size of a dinner napkin covering the surface of your brain. It’s the part that looks crumpled and folded into crevices. It is made up of six layers of nerve cells. And every cubic millimetre of your cerebral cortex contains roughly a billion synapses! What’s more, there are more synapses in the human brain than there are stars in the known Universe!

The human brain is the most powerful, advanced, complex, information-processing system in the Universe. The brain is proof of God—an Almighty Mind that is infinite in power, knowledge, wisdom, and glory. Now please tell me how evolution created this.

Should I go on?

No you shouldn't because you have done nothing to show anything you claim to be true.

You have no understanding of gje science you think you're railing against, and the idea that you think you are is laughable.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Post 30 please.

This challenge has been met.

No it hasn't in the slightest. Saying "It's in crisis" is in mo way showing it's in crisis.

 

[AV1611VET]

No it hasn't in the slightest. Saying "It's in crisis" is in mo way showing it's in crisis.

I both said it and gave examples.

What more do you want? a definition of "crisis"?

Oh, wait!

I did that too.

 

[dwb001]

Seeing as all a scientific theory needs to disprove it is one piece of evidence that it is false, I would say the more evidence is brought forward the more in crisis the theory is in.

But if you provide evidence for the falsity of evolution (successive progression of change not in the correct order in the fossil record) it just gets waved away as an anomaly or buried.

If an indisputable piece of evidence were to be found... a human in a T-Rex or similar "impossibility"... then the crisis becomes quite real.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Post 30 please.

This challenge has been met.

Hardly. Most of your "examples" predate the existence of a theory of evolution. None are current. Therefore, even if they were valid challenges to evolutionary theory, none demonstrate that "evolution *is* (and not *was*) in crisis".

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I both said it and gave examples.

What more do you want? a definition of "crisis"?

Oh, wait!

I did that too.

Laughable, for sure.

A definition of crisis and claims do not constitute evidence of a crisis. You said things, but showed nothing.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Seeing as all a scientific theory needs to disprove it is one piece of evidence that it is false, I would say the more evidence is brought forward the more in crisis the theory is in.

But if you provide evidence for the falsity of evolution (successive progression of change not in the correct order in the fossil record) it just gets waved away as an anomaly or buried.

If an indisputable piece of evidence were to be found... a human in a T-Rex or similar "impossibility"... then the crisis becomes quite real.

Okay, but do you actually have examples of such evidence to even say that evolution is a theory in crisis? That is the nub of this thread: not SAYING that evolution is in crisis, but SHOWING that it is.

 

[dwb001]

Okay, but do you actually have examples of such evidence to even say that evolution is a theory in crisis? That is the nub of this thread: not SAYING that evolution is in crisis, but SHOWING that it is.

The evolution of a horse.
I don't have the references at hand... but the text books show slow lengthening of legs and body... but where these bones show up in the geologic column they are not in the text book order.
The mutations appear to show up, disappear, and merge with playful abandon.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The evolution of a horse.
I don't have the references at hand... but the text books show slow lengthening of legs and body... but where these bones show up in the geologic column they are not in the text book order.
The mutations appear to show up, disappear, and merge with playful abandon.

The evolution of the horse is really well documented, as well as the evolution of humans. And yes, nothing is in the 'text book order', because Earth's history is not text book. Uplift, subsiding, tectonic activity, continental drift, play havoc with the rocks, making scientists use other methods than just knowing the rocks to see how old things are.
And yes, mutations show up, disappear and merge with 'playful abandon'. Because that's how evolution works. It is not a simple, straight forward linear process.

That's not really showing that evolution is a theory in crisis.

 

[JohnEmmett]

Laughable, for sure.

A definition of crisis and claims do not constitute evidence of a crisis. You said things, but showed nothing.

you say there is no evidence, and you always will say, no matter the actual reality

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

you say there is no evidence, and you always will say, no matter the actual reality

Got any evidence?

 

[JohnEmmett]

Got any evidence?

you won't look at the videos I share


refer to previous topics… such as War on Mars

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

you won't look at the videos I share


refer to previous topics… such as War on Mars

I have watched the videos. As evidence, they're worthless.

 

[JohnEmmett]

I have watched the videos. As evidence, they're worthless.

There is trace of nuclear activity on Mars

 

[dwb001]

The evolution of the horse is really well documented, as well as the evolution of humans. And yes, nothing is in the 'text book order', because Earth's history is not text book. Uplift, subsiding, tectonic activity, continental drift, play havoc with the rocks, making scientists use other methods than just knowing the rocks to see how old things are.
And yes, mutations show up, disappear and merge with 'playful abandon'. Because that's how evolution works. It is not a simple, straight forward linear process.

That's not really showing that evolution is a theory in crisis.

And this is the defense of a failed ideology in action.
Not due to uplift, subsiding or other physical activity.
Due to the animals not being evolved.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And this is the defense of a failed ideology in action.
Not due to uplift, subsiding or other physical activity.
Due to the animals not being evolved.

Tell me you know nothing about science without telling me you know nothing about science.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There is trace of nuclear activity on Mars

Not the thread for this. Go take it somewhere else.