Facts to disprove theory of evolution

[Chesterton]

Not aurochs specifically, but closely related hooved creatures.

As I specifically noted in an earlier post.

 

[partinobodycular]

Doesn't even begin to address what I said. Thanks for nothing.

You're welcome. It seems that I gave you exactly what you were looking for... an answer that you could deny.

 

[friend of]

You're welcome. It seems that I gave you exactly what you were looking for... an answer that you could deny.

Well I mean yeah sure. Whales breath oxygen out of lungs. But whales didn't beach themselves on dry land and then develop into monkeys now did they?

Evolution states that if we go back far enough, every creature had its origin in a primordial cell. This primordial cell originated in the sea (because that makes more sense, I guess)

My logical question to you is thus: how do you think that primordial cell respirated?

 

[Chesterton]

No, they would not be dismissed "because they are theists." It is not necessary, anyway, because the ID of the Discovery Institute can easily be dismissed on scientific grounds.

Okay I'm willing to give you an example and hear you out. Just go to about 17:30 in this video and hear what he has to say about Charles Lyell's idea of explaining the past based on "causes now in operation". I'd be interested to hear someone dismiss science on scientific grounds.

 

[BCP1928]

Okay I'm willing to give you an example and hear you out. Just go to about 17:30 in this video and hear what he has to say about Charles Lyell's idea of explaining the past based on "causes now in operation". I'd be interested to hear someone dismiss science on scientific grounds.

Why do you want me to watch a video of magical thinking about information theory? That's what brought ID down.

 

[Astrid]

If we were to observe the spontaneous generation of a living organism out of non-living or inorganic matter, that would be the sort of fact that could disprove evolution.

Hmm. Like Lucretius writing about wombs forming
in fertile soil and out pops a pole cat or whatever?

 

[Chesterton]

Why do you want me to watch a video of magical thinking about information theory? That's what brought ID down.

You said you could dismiss anything from them "on scientific grounds". I only asked you to watch one or two minutes of it to get your opinion. And I had said to you that I didn't want to post anything like that because it would be immediately dismissed as theistic. And now you dismiss it without comment because it's "magical thinking", which I can only take as code words for theistic or supernatural or something like that. But that method of magical thinking comes from Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin.

 

[Astrid]

Okay I'm willing to give you an example and hear you out. Just go to about 17:30 in this video and hear what he has to say about Charles Lyell's idea of explaining the past based on "causes now in operation". I'd be interested to hear someone dismiss science on scientific grounds.

You'd be interested in someone dismissing
science on scientific grounds?

Make that " disprove theory or hypothesis
with scientific data" and it what my op is about.

Can you state the issue you are concerned about in the vid?

 

[Chesterton]

Make that " disprove theory or hypothesis
with scientific data" and it what my op is about.

I said this in an earlier post: the TOE concerns pre-history. I don't believe it can be proven or disproven with facts or data. We can only reason from the evidence left behind, and from what we know of causes now in operation.

 

[Astrid]

Well I mean yeah sure. Whales breath oxygen out of lungs. But whales didn't beach themselves on dry land and then develop into monkeys now did they?

Evolution states that if we go back far enough, every creature had its origin in a primordial cell. This primordial cell originated in the sea (because that makes more sense, I guess)

My logical question to you is thus: how do you think that primordial cell respirated?

Nobody knows what first life was like.

But it's a whollyndifferent topic. If you want to
explore it Google is your friend. Or stsrt a thread in it.

This one is about disproving ToE. Please don't derail.

Didn't I write a long something for you on respiration?
I don't believe you even acknowledged it.

 

[Lost4words]

There are many people that believe in the Christian god, but also believe in evolution.
Just because you believe in a god, it doesn't mean you have to deny science.

I am all for science. Not fiction.

 

[Astrid]

I said this in an earlier post: the TOE concerns pre-history. I don't believe it can be proven or disproven with facts or data. We can only reason from the evidence left behind, and from what we know of causes now in operation.

History, the present, both.
And no theory.can ever be proven. OK plz let's not
keep doing this?
As for disproof of past events. Ancient Rome is extensively
studied.
Let's make a bet. You say Herculanium was destroyed
with a tsunami and everyone used stainless steel
forks and spoons.
I say no.
Who wins if we go check?
Regardless of that, IF ToE is false it would be
A. A cinch to disprove
B. the evidence would not all confirm it.

 

[Astrid]

No. As I said, I haven't read the book. I read about it many years ago. The OP asked for facts, and has asked for facts several more times in the thread, so after 8 pages of being snarky I thought I'd try and help her out, so I said "maybe" she could look into Wistar.

I do recall that some of the mathematicians were very top-notch from places like MIT so calling them "mathematical types" is a bit insulting. And yes there were also biologists and engineers.

Some engineers but no facts.
Not that i need help with examples
of no facts.

 

[Astrid]

Did you just admit that the TOE is absurd? You think I reduced the story? I invite you to look at the below animation from the very prestigious Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History. You don't have watch the whole thing, just look at about 1:18 where the land dwelling critter suddenly starts living underwater. As I said before, the story is a bit lacking in details.

Evolution of Whales Animation

Animated video showing the rapid evolution of whales, from walking Pakicetus 48 million years ago, to the swimming Llanocetus 34 million years ago.

naturalhistory.si.edu

Look up reduction ad absurdum .

And whale evolution. There's far more info to be found
than you are at all likely to read.

 

[Astrid]

Feel free. But as Estrid correctly reminds us, religious opinion is not evidence. It is not even useful for deciding what is and what is not evidence.

And posting it, esp over and over is in violation
of forum rules.

 

[Astrid]

As someone else said, it might be impossible. We're talking about trying to prove or disprove very ancient pre-history.

As to your OP, if you want facts maybe look into the Wistar Conference of 1966 in Philadelphia. There was a book published which consists of the transcripts of the conference. I haven't read the book, but I've read about the contents. The mathematicians determined that the universe is simply not old enough, that there hasn't been enough time to create a single complex living cell, much less a horse or a human. The interesting thing is that the pro-evolutionists could not refute the mathematicians, so they resorted to simply saying "but we can't say this publicly!"

There's a saying something to the effect of "if an idea has to be protected from scrutiny, that's a red flag that the idea may be bad". And it's weird that scientists today can be ostracized and even lose their jobs if they question the TOE.

" if an idea has to be protected"
See history of Christianity and its sanctions
up to and including the inquisition, for expressing
a y but the party line.

The essence of science involves question, debate, dealing with facts. not accrpting authirity.

Your claim that everyone accepting ToE is intellectually
dishonest is unworthy of anyone, though it's straight from
the playback.

And I've heard it ten thousand times.

 

[friend of]

Nobody knows what first life was like.

But it's a whollyndifferent topic. If you want to
explore it Google is your friend. Or stsrt a thread in it.

This one is about disproving ToE. Please don't derail.

Didn't I write a long something for you on respiration?
I don't believe you even acknowledged it.

That's what im doing. I am attempting to disprove ToE by highlighting the absurdity of marine life adapting to living on land. That is a facet of evolution and I am discussing it right now with a couple people.

Could you link me to your post on respiration? I must have missed it as I have not read the entire thread. Thanks.

 

[BCP1928]

You said you could dismiss anything from them "on scientific grounds". I only asked you to watch one or two minutes of it to get your opinion. And I had said to you that I didn't want to post anything like that because it would be immediately dismissed as theistic. And now you dismiss it without comment because it's "magical thinking", which I can only take as code words for theistic or supernatural or something like that. But that method of magical thinking comes from Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin.

I meant magical thinking about Information Theory. I should have said "muddled" thinking about Information theory because I did not mean to imply that it was about the supernatural. Yes, I went back and watched that segment of the video like you wanted just to be sure and found it to be exactly the same as the Discovery Institute output I read years ago. My undergraduate degree is in math and I have used IT concepts in my own work so I was interested when I heard what the Discovery Institute was trying to do. I've read their papers and I've read their critics' papers. The bottom line is, that the kind of 'information" they are talking about does not apply to evolutionary genetics.

 

[Astrid]

That's what im doing. I am attempting to disprove ToE by highlighting the absurdity of marine life adapting to living on land. That is a facet of evolution and I am discussing it right now with a couple people.

Could you link me to your post on respiration? I must have missed it as I have not read the entire thread. Thanks.

Post 38

As for what you find absurd...
I addressed transition to land in that post.
It's not a big mystery.


Again, it was not marine but fresh water fish that
were ancestral to amohinians, so there's one error.

Heres some fish that live out of water. Drown if kept in water.

What do you find absurd about them.?

 

[Larniavc]

According to evolution, yes, they do.

Actual individual animal morphing into another? That’s nothing to do with ToT in the slightest. Within what time frame does this magical transformation take?

Dumbest idea I’ve heard all week.