Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
I am asking you if life could have began on earth and all the evidence was lost prior to the life we first see in fossil evidence on earth?

Cosmic teapots.

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."--Bertrand Russell
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟83,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
You mean those rudiments of the world Paul warned us about?
Again, I'll take the physical evidence left by God over that of primitive man or Paul (Saul), who wouldn't know the difference between an igneous, metamorphic, or sedimentary rock. BTW, what did Paul write? Or was it that Paul was written about?
 
Upvote 0

Jan Volkes

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2015
1,302
231
44
UK
✟2,674.00
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
I am asking you if life could have began on earth and all the evidence was lost prior to the life we first see in fossil evidence on earth?
If all the evidence was lost how would we know? if there were no gods how would we know?
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I just don't know what to say so I had better say nothing.
I just don't know what to say so I had better say nothing.
Right, breaking of a cosmic egg is equally scientific as this is:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

This is like a heading or title rather than what many see as the first act in Creation. It is stating that there was a beginning to our universe and that God created both the heavens and the earth. This is supported later in Genesis. The Big Bang theory supports that the universe did have a beginning.

Now the earth was unformed and void,

This is stating that the earth was not formed yet. Which supports my viewpoint that the first verse is not the first act of Creation.


and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.

Science has shown that the early universe was dark (see below)
Up until recently, there was a conflict with Science due to the fact that it was considered impossible for a liquid form to be present during the formation of the universe. This also comes in below.


And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

2 3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ht_010808.html

Astronomers announced Tuesday they have seen through the fog of the early universe to spy some of the first light emitted during a "cosmic renaissance" that occurred when the first galaxies were born.
The announcement came just days after a different research group said they had spotted the first evidence of the cosmic dark ages, the period long thought to have preceded this newly spotted cosmic brightening.
Together, the studies provide glimpses into the earliest mechanisms of the universe, after the Big Bang. Astronomers familiar with the studies called them important for helping create a timeline of the universe's evolution.
Evidence for the two epochs have long been sought by astronomers and cosmologists, who believe the universe began in a Big Bang some 12 to 15 billion years ago, after which the universe expanded rapidly but remained dark for millions and millions of years. Lumps and bumps were thought to form in an otherwise smooth distribution of matter during these dark ages, and the first galaxies were born after gravity caused these clumps of matter to grow larger.
The galaxies marked the end of the dark ages and the beginning of the cosmic renaissance.


6 And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.' 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. {P}
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7546975/
Liquid, not a gas
The quark-gluon plasma was made in the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider — a powerful atom smasher at Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, N.Y. Unexpectedly, the quark-gluon plasma behaved like a perfect liquid of quarks, instead of a gas, the physicists said.

9 And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good.
This again was thought conflicting with Scientific findings, it was thought that the early earth was too hot for a liquid state but that has been shown not to be the case. Early earth did have water on its surface.
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟83,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
I am asking you if life could have began on earth and all the evidence was lost prior to the life we first see in fossil evidence on earth?
No, this is evident not only in the fossil record of some 4 Ga, but the geochemical record revealing the physical atmospheric and oceanic record.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If there were multiple origins of life then we would not expect all life to share such things as codon usage, or even the same genetic molecules.
If all life was destroyed there would be no other origins but those we find in the life forms we have today.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No, this is evident not only in the fossil record of some 4 Ga, but the geochemical record revealing the physical atmospheric and oceanic record.
How do you know that the sort of life was not capable of existence in the physical conditions we had on early earth?
 
Upvote 0

Jan Volkes

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2015
1,302
231
44
UK
✟2,674.00
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
Right, breaking of a cosmic egg is equally scientific as this is:

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

This is like a heading or title rather than what many see as the first act in Creation. It is stating that there was a beginning to our universe and that God created both the heavens and the earth. This is supported later in Genesis. The Big Bang theory supports that the universe did have a beginning.

Now the earth was unformed and void,

This is stating that the earth was not formed yet. Which supports my viewpoint that the first verse is not the first act of Creation.


and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.

Science has shown that the early universe was dark (see below)
Up until recently, there was a conflict with Science due to the fact that it was considered impossible for a liquid form to be present during the formation of the universe. This also comes in below.


And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

2 3 And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ht_010808.html

Astronomers announced Tuesday they have seen through the fog of the early universe to spy some of the first light emitted during a "cosmic renaissance" that occurred when the first galaxies were born.
The announcement came just days after a different research group said they had spotted the first evidence of the cosmic dark ages, the period long thought to have preceded this newly spotted cosmic brightening.
Together, the studies provide glimpses into the earliest mechanisms of the universe, after the Big Bang. Astronomers familiar with the studies called them important for helping create a timeline of the universe's evolution.
Evidence for the two epochs have long been sought by astronomers and cosmologists, who believe the universe began in a Big Bang some 12 to 15 billion years ago, after which the universe expanded rapidly but remained dark for millions and millions of years. Lumps and bumps were thought to form in an otherwise smooth distribution of matter during these dark ages, and the first galaxies were born after gravity caused these clumps of matter to grow larger.
The galaxies marked the end of the dark ages and the beginning of the cosmic renaissance.


6 And God said: 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.' 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. {P}
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7546975/
Liquid, not a gas
The quark-gluon plasma was made in the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider — a powerful atom smasher at Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, N.Y. Unexpectedly, the quark-gluon plasma behaved like a perfect liquid of quarks, instead of a gas, the physicists said.

9 And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good.
This again was thought conflicting with Scientific findings, it was thought that the early earth was too hot for a liquid state but that has been shown not to be the case. Early earth did have water on its surface.
I hope you don't mind me saying this but all of that didn't help one little bit because it's meaningless.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mr Strawberry

Newbie
Jan 20, 2012
4,180
81
Great Britain
✟12,542.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
I am asking you if life could have began on earth and all the evidence was lost prior to the life we first see in fossil evidence on earth?

You mean if life began, as seems likely, with self-replicating molecules, we can never actually find any evidence of that, or indeed any evidence before stromatolites, which I think are our earliest genuine evidence of life on Earth - I may be wrong about that. Is that what you're driving at?
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If our telescopes were not powerful enough to see the teapot moving about in the orbit of Mars . . .
We don't have the earliest record of our planet. Without that we have no evidence for what was on it at that time. So it is a gap in our knowledge which is very common in the scientific realm.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You mean if life began, as seems likely, with self-replicating molecules, we can never actually find any evidence of that, or indeed any evidence before stromatolites, which I think are our earliest genuine evidence of life on Earth - I may be wrong about that. Is that what you're driving at?
First of all your assumption that life beginning with self-replicating molecules is likely is not anywhere in evidence either, and yes, we do not have the earliest rocks or material from Earth's history until the first Cyanobacteria.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
A lack of oxygen for one thing.
Scientists don't know how far back oxygen goes.

'Almost certainly biological'

All in all, the researchers suggest atmospheric oxygen levels 3 billion years ago were about 100,000 times higher than what can be explained by regular chemical reactions in Earth's atmosphere. "That suggests the source of this oxygen was almost certainly biological," Crowe said.

"It's exciting that it took a relatively short time for oxygenic photosynthesis to evolve on Earth," Crowe added. "It means that it could happen on other planets on Earth, expanding the number of worlds that could've developed oxygenated atmospheres and complex oxygen-breathing life."

Future research can look for similarly aged rocks from other places, both on and outside Earth, to confirm these findings. "Research could also look at earlier rocks," Crowe said. "Chances are, if there was oxygen 3 billion years ago, there was likely oxygen production some time before as well. How far back does it go?"
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Again, I'll take the physical evidence left by God over that of primitive man or Paul (Saul), who wouldn't know the difference between an igneous, metamorphic, or sedimentary rock. BTW, what did Paul write? Or was it that Paul was written about?
As we have determined we have not crossed paths much so I was wondering about your position. What makes you a Christian? I mean no disrespect nor am I questioning you being a Christian; I would just like to know what it was that compelled you to being a Christian.
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
198
✟20,665.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Again, I'll take the physical evidence left by God

How do you know it was God?

over that of primitive man or Paul (Saul), who wouldn't know the difference between an igneous, metamorphic, or sedimentary rock. BTW, what did Paul write? Or was it that Paul was written about?

Paul was more interested in proclaiming the gospel of creation rather than looking elsewhere for truth.

Rom 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Rom 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Rom 1:22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
He was writing against athestic Darwinist creationism (man is just another ape) early in his letters.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,482
62
✟570,596.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
"Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent. "
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

Are we back to truth being a democracy? I thought we had already been over this.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,282
6,482
62
✟570,596.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
For some it is necessary though, although primitive.

Lets face it, evolution is a real psychological threat to people with certain faith beliefs and like any other threat, it must be warded off at all costs.

Lets face it, the truth of creation is a real psychological threat to people with certain evolutionary beliefs and like any other threat, it must be warded off at all costs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oncedeceived
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.