Fossil Challenge for Evolutionists

[Steve Petersen]

What makes YOU an authority?
Here's an authority....

I am making no claim to authority. This guy is.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Everything stated by the writer is true.
Unless YOU can prove it's wrong...

Leprechauns are real. Prove me wrong.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I have said this before, but I may as well say it again; it depends on what you mean by 'prove'.

In the strict sense, no scientific theory can ever be proved; it is always possible that a new observational or experimental fact will overturn even a well-established theory. The classic example is the anomalous precession of the orbit of Mercury, which could not be explained by Newton's theory of gravitation and therefore showed that the theory was wrong.

However, a successful scientific theory is one that explains a wide range of observed facts. For example, the theory of evolution explains the facts of genetics, anatomy, embryology, biogeography, palaeontology, and probably other branches of biology. A new theory that is intended to supplant the old theory must be at least as successful in explaining the facts as its predecessor. 'God did it' is not a satisfactory explanation; God could just as well have done it in a different way. Also, where a scientific theory has been disproved, it has always been replaced by another naturalistic theory; for example, Newton's theory of gravitation was replaced by Einstein's general theory of relativity. I do not know of any example of a naturalistic scientific theory being replaced by a supernatural one. A new general theory of biology would almost certainly require the transmutation of species, and you would therefore find it just as unacceptable as the present theory of evolution.

However, I would guess that what you are saying is not that not every alternative scientific theory to the present synthetic theory of evolution has been disproved and that therefore the present theory could be superseded by some other scientific theory (e.g. the inheritance of acquired characteristics), but that it has not been proved that God did not miraculously create the universe in its present form in six days while giving it the appearance of a long history with living things having evolved. This is true, but one could say the same thing about any scientific theory. For example, nobody can prove that planets, comets, binary stars, etc. are not being pushed along their orbits by invisible angels. However, general relativity and Newton's theory of gravitation are mathematically more tractable, and they allow astronomers to predict observable events, so for scientific purposes we prefer to use these theories, while leaving the existence of angels an open question. In the same way, biologists find that theories of evolution explain the biological facts satisfactorily, and so prefer to use these theories in their work, while leaving it an open question whether living things have really evolved or whether God created them with the appearance of having evolved.

I never mentioned the word God one time in all my posts.

What I'm saying is what you're saying above regarding what "prove" means. Yes,,,the present theory can be superseded and, it seems to me, already has been since many scientists are looking into alternative theories.

Re the fossil findings. As I said before,,,,we see each species of animal or flora or fauna in each fossil "age", but we do NOT see the change.

What has caused brand new changes to come into being? Maybe a daisy didn't exist before..WHY does it exist now?

I tend to agree with an intelligent being causing the original life ingredients and causing changes to them...but if it could be PROVEN, for sure, that everything this complicated came about on its very own...I'm willing to accept it.

I'm hearing about young earth, which sounds like nonsense since bones millions of years old have been found...OTOH, I can't imagine a being as complex as man just happening all on its own,,,all the right ingredients being put together.

I see a lot of atheists on this thread...

Maybe THEY need to accept an intelligent design if that's how we end up,,,just as much as I'm willing to aceept coincidental life coming about if that's how we end up.

What is true, is true.
I just don't believe we know it yet...

 

[GodsGrace101]

Do you think that over a few million years an ape could turn into a different kind of ape?

Yes. But within his own species...changes could occur as they're needed.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I advise you to look at Creation Homepage before you say that it is a proven fact. (Of course, I think that Bowden is wrong, but he probably makes as good a case for geocentricity as most creationists make against evolution.)

I clicked on the link.
It's about the bible.
I'm not here to discuss the bible.
And I don't know if I'm a creationist...
I do tend to believe that some being higher than we are did plan everything.

I AM a Christian and I do call that being GOD.

 

[GodsGrace101]

You appear to have a very naive idea of cosmology in which at one time there was nothing (i.e. the universe did not exist) and at a later time the universe did exist. However, so far as I understand it, this idea is mistaken. Time itself is 'something'; space-time is an essential component of the universe, and cannot be separated it. Time came into existence with the universe itself, so there was no 'BEFORE' the big bang.

If you actually want answers to your questions, you ought to read some books on cosmology, such as The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow; A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss; The Road to Reality by Roger Penrose; Our Mathematical Universe by Max Tegmark; Calculating the Cosmos by Ian Stewart; and Universal: A Journey through the Universe, by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw. If you read these books you will probably still be confused, but you will be confused on a higher level.

I don't object to your being ignorant of cosmology; it's a very difficult subject, and I don't know much about it myself. What I do object to is your implication that the fact that we don't understand the origin of the universe proves that a god (and specifically your God) exists and that therefore we should reject most of science and other forms of learning in favour of the Christian Bible.

I know Lawrence Krauss.
I'm not planning on becoming a scientist of any type!

I do read a little bit here and there and I've been listening to interviews on youTube that I find very interesting. I like to listen to both sides of every story.

And my idea is not naive...I'm probably not using the
correct language...

What I said is that FORMERLY scientists believed that the universe (s) always existed.

THEN, not long ago, they discovered that the universe(s) had a BEGINNING.

This actually caused a problem for them and they now had to figure out HOW the universe began.

I'M not saying this...it's a known fact.

Krauss is trying to show that something could come from nothing.

I'm waiting on this one....

 

[GodsGrace101]

Barycenter... . Stuff's just wobblin' all over the place!

I know what you mean, but it's not a great example. Particularly in this instance, as there is AT LEAST as good evidence for evolution by natural selection as their is for heliocentrism. And, the characteristics of arguments for geocentrism (be they psuedo-scientific, theological or solipistic) share very similar traits to those used for supporting creationism.

I don't believe what you say is true.

Before scientific methods it was believed that the sun circled the earth. After scientific methods were employed as the technology became available, it was "proven" that the sun stays still and the earth circles the sun.

It is still my belief that natural selection is being abandoned since we're not finding the links from one species to the next. We're not finding the "proof" after many years of having technology available to us.

To say nothing of creation of life....
HOW did life even begin???
We know what is needed for life and it cannot be created in a lab...at the chemical level, I mean.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Certainly. Which species of human would you like to see the DNA testing for?



You claimed that if there is nothing, nothing can come from it. I'd like to know why this is relevant. Even if it is true, you would need to first establish that there has ever been such a state. Otherwise, your point is entirely meaningless. For what it's worth, the only people who believe that something came from nothing are a certain subset of theists. But somehow it's ok if THEY believe that because...magic.



There are many theories about how the universe began, none of them are as simple as you state here. There are STILL scientists who hypothesize that the universe has always existed. Others, that the universe is a result of something else.

The Big Bang doesn't really describe the initiation of our universe, just what happened to it in the last 13+ billion years. But they don't really know where it comes from, and they'd tell you that.



Ok, here you go:

The earliest modern humans outside Africa

Correct me if I'm wrong,,,but I do believe the big bang theory has been accepted as how the universe began. There are other theories, of which I know only one and don't really understand it, but I believe that has also been discarded for the BB theory.

Something coming from nothing is very relevant because the SOMETHING had to start somehwere, and WHERE and HOW did it start from NOTHING.

I do believe scientists are now agreed that before the BB there was nothing..this is problematic.

Thanks for the article. It doesn't show one type of human changing drastically into another type...That life comes from Africa is pretty much accepted and the article shows micro evolution, which I do believe to be true.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Correct me if I'm wrong,,,but I do believe the big bang theory has been accepted as how the universe began. There are other theories, of which I know only one and don't really understand it, but I believe that has also been discarded for the BB theory.

Something coming from nothing is very relevant because the SOMETHING had to start somehwere, and WHERE and HOW did it start from NOTHING.

I do believe scientists are now agreed that before the BB there was nothing..this is problematic.

Thanks for the article. It doesn't show one type of human changing drastically into another type...That life comes from Africa is pretty much accepted and the article shows micro evolution, which I do believe to be true.

You really need to get a handle on the word 'theory' in the scientific sense. Then the word 'proof.'

 

[GodsGrace101]

Re-reading your posts I can understand why you might feel that there is still some doubt over the accuracy of evolution.

I'm curious as to whether you spend any time reading non-creationist sources, because the only real opposition to the Theory of Evolution comes from groups or individuals with a commitment to safeguarding a particular religious standpoint. I'm referring to organisations like Answers in Genesis, Evolution News, etc - these sites can be very persuasive to the layman who is satisfied with taking their claims at face value, but often as not they are spreading misinformation to further their agenda (although I don't doubt that most of them are genuine in their beliefs).

I don't really read sites on this. I can hardly understand what YOU are posting. I also don't have an agenda. I'd be very happy to know how we got here. When I was a teen I read Chariots of the Gods and was pretty convinced we're the seed of some alien species. So I've thought about this a lot. I am Christian and I've been asked many times where God begins, or comes from. I have no answer. But I find it more difficult to believe that life comes from nothing at all,,,which is what science is telling me as of right now. I posted an interview with Stephen Meyer a couple of posts ago,,,is he disseminating false information??

On the other side of the coin do you not find it odd that there is no debate within the scientific community as to the fact of common descent? Obviously we don't fully understand every minute detail of the proccess, as it's a complicated business. This is where there is debate over minutiae, the importance of certain mechanisms etc, as the list of scientists you posted earlier demonstrated. Did you take the time to check up on the scientists who had signed up... Eugene Koonin, James Shapiro, etc, all respected biologists who fully accept common descent through evolution and have published many papers on the topic.

I know the scientific community agrees on common descent. I'm more interested in the beginning. The beginning also includes chemicals, so I try to listen to chemists too.

So while there may be some debate over the finer details of the Theory of Evolution there is none about the fact that evolution has occurred. The only resistance comes from a particular subset of religious groups with a vested interest in protecting a particular interpretation of the bible, odd isn't it?

Agreed. But are you talking about mircroevolution or macroevolution??

None of this answers your question of course... "The onus is on YOU to show me, without doubt, that evolution is accepted as a scientific fact"

I mean macro...and I know you can't because we're just not there yet. You do have to at least admit that some scientists are abandoning the idea of one type of species becoming a different type of species...

I won't just give you one little example that "proves" common descent, as will always be some excuse to dissmiss it. If I say that micro-evolution can be observed in the lab, the creationist objects that it doesn't "prove" monkey to man, a sequence of fossils that clearly show a morphological sequence can be dismissed as mere variation, nested heirarchies are dissmissed as "common design", we've heard them all.

From the common ancestor, doesn't man take a different route than monkey? I do remember seeing this on a chart...

So in response to your question I'd like to offer a couple of sources, one from a christian organization, that lay out the evidence as a whole, I just hope that you can approach them with an open mind...

What is the evidence for evolution? - Common-questions

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

I clicked on the links but will have to read them later.
I do have an open mind....Seems to me nothing is 100% sure yet...and may never be.

click to expand

 

[Jimmy D]

Everything stated by the writer is true.
Unless YOU can prove it's wrong...

I'm sure that you don't think that anything people write is true, until proven otherwise, that would be a very strange position to take.

Actually what is written in that letter is demonstrably false...

"It is past time that those who purport general evolutionary theory to be fact be brought into the light. Scientifically speaking, this theory does not qualify for classification as fact."

A Theory will never be a fact, it explains facts, to quote wikipedia... A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.


"It deals with history, which is not subject to investigation by experimentation."

Again, not entirely true, populations can be observed, in the lab and the real world. And obviously events of the past leave behind evidence that can be examined in the present, what do you think air crash investigators or the police detectives, for example, do all day?

"The process of general evolution could theoretically be reproduced through experimentation, but it never has been. "

Has the author not heard of dogs, or wheat?

"Though speciation has been demonstrated in laboratories, no event beyond speciation has ever been demonstrated."

Beyond speciation? That's not even a thing. He accepts speciation, but not the Theory of Evolution? That's just stupid, what does he think the TOE is attempting to explain?

"Charles Darwin clearly delineated the differences between speciation and general evolution, and noted that the support for general evolution would have to come from the fossil record."

Did he? I'm going to say that Darwin said no such thing, speciation is evolution in action.

"In ''The Origin of Species,'' Darwin noted that without the appropriate fossil evidence (which did not exist in his day) his general theory would hold no weight."

Another lie? He said no such thing as far as I'm aware. Although he did bemoan the fact that the fossil record was woefully incomplete.

"He and others tenaciously clung to the hope that the unfolding of the fossil record would show all of the intermediate forms necessary to support his claims. Today, however, with more than 100,000 species represented in fossils, the lack of intermediate forms is even greater than it was in Darwin's day."

Two falsehoods in one, he didn't hope the fossil record would show "all" of the intermediate forms. Secondly, enough intermediate forms have since been found to validate his claims. Ask a paleontologist.

"Not only has the fossil record failed, but findings of modern scientists have made general evolutionary theory even less tenable."

A complete lie of course, molecular biology, the mapping of our genomes etc has provided a slam dunk that Darwin couldn't have dreamed of... ask a geneticist.

"In ''Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,'' for example, Michael Denton methodically analyzes a wealth of evidence that challenges this theory. His subjects include the failure of homology (homologous structures not being represented by homologous genes nor embryonic development); the typological nature of microbiology, and problems associated with chance as a directive force, in addition to the lack of a supportive fossil record."

I haven't read Denton's book.... these guys have though....

Reviews by parties within the scientific community were vehemently negative, with several attacking flaws in Denton's arguments. Biologist and philosopher Michael Ghiselin described A Theory in Crisis as "a book by an author who is obviously incompetent, dishonest, or both — and it may be very hard to decide which is the case" and that his "arguments turn out to be flagrant instances of the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion."[4]

Biologist Walter P. Coombs writing in Library Journal said that Denton "details legitimate questions, some as old as Darwin's theory, some as new as molecular biology, but he also distorts or misrepresents other 'problems'" and that "much of the book reads like creationist prattle, but there are also some interesting points."[5] Mark I. Vuletic, in an essay posted to the talk.origins Archive, presented a detailed argument that Denton's attempts to make an adequate challenge to evolutionary biology fail, contending that Denton neither managed to undermine the evidence for evolution, nor demonstrated that macroevolutionary mechanisms are inherently implausible.[6]

Philip Spieth, Professor of Genetics at University of California, Berkeley, reviewed the book saying his conclusions are "erroneous" and wrote the book "could not pass the most sympathetic peer review" because "evolutionary theory is misrepresented and distorted; spurious arguments are advanced as disproof of topics to which the arguments are, at best, tangentially relevant; evolutionary biologists are quoted out of context; large portions of relevant scientific literature are ignored; dubious or inaccurate statements appear as bald assertions accompanied, more often than not, with scorn."[7]

Paleontologist Niles Eldredge in a review wrote that the book is "fraught with distortions" and utilized arguments similar to creationists.[8]

link

"Evolutionists, however, have yet to provide solid evidence, while they ignore all the evidence against them (demonstrating the real issue, I think: the exclusion of God from an active role in nature). All the while, they preach their gospel as fact and force-feed it to America's students, who swallow it in ignorance."

This is just stupid... many "evolutionists" are christian, muslim, hindu, whatever.

And to pretend that there is no evidence is just idiotic.

 

[Jimmy D]

click to expand

Thanks, I recommend at least looking at the first link, it's quite brief and easy to follow, the second is more detailed.

In response to some of your comments.

There is no real difference between macro and micro evolution apart from the timescales involved. They are both merely an accumulation of tiny gradual changes.

Looking at whale evolution for example....

There are no drastic "jumps" from one species to another, just many cases of what you might describe as micro evolution adding up over millions of years to quite a significant difference.

 

[pitabread]

What makes YOU an authority?
Here's an authority....

FYI, but Stephen Meyer isn't an authority in biology.

If you want to evaluate if someone is an authority (i.e. an expert) in a particular field, you need to look at their credentials, their employment track record and for scientists in particular their research areas and publication record.

In the case of Meyer he has neither a background in biology nor has ever worked as or published as a professional biologist. Mostly he writes pop-sci Intelligent Design books which have historically have been picked apart by actual biologists due to the numerous errors they contain.

 

[VirOptimus]

It's not laughable if it's telling the truth.

And you DO NOT know I'm wrong because YOU DO NOT KNOW what started LIFE.

As soon as you can, come back to this thread and prove to all of us how LIFE BEGAN.

As I'm not ignorant I know you are wrong.

Try learn science 101.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I'm sure that you don't think that anything people write is true, until proven otherwise, that would be a very strange position to take.

LOL
Of course.
Otherwise I'd be vassellating continuously.

Actually what is written in that letter is demonstrably false...

"It is past time that those who purport general evolutionary theory to be fact be brought into the light. Scientifically speaking, this theory does not qualify for classification as fact."

A Theory will never be a fact, it explains facts, to quote wikipedia... A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.

It's layman's vocabulary. You can't expect us to know your language. Lawyers have theirs, doctors have theirs... IOW, to ME, unless something comes along that we can't see right now....the BB theory is pretty much proven. It's "accepted" by the scientific community and so should be accepted by us also.

I don't see this with evolution.

"Repeatedly testing" is part of the problem...life cannot be created in the lab even though all chemicals for life are known and available to us. I may be off on this,,,but if life cannot be started...how do we even GO to evolution?
Shouldn't one come before the other? I'm not sure about this.


"It deals with history, which is not subject to investigation by experimentation."

Again, not entirely true, populations can be observed, in the lab and the real world. And obviously events of the past leave behind evidence that can be examined in the present, what do you think air crash investigators or the police detectives, for example, do all day?

I think Stephen Meyer brought this up in his interview. You could watch just the very beginning, I do believe he mentions this...
(and please don't accuse me of FOLLOWING him, like was done to me with Dr. Tours -- I don't "follow" anybody)

"The process of general evolution could theoretically be reproduced through experimentation, but it never has been. "

Has the author not heard of dogs, or wheat?

What do you mean by dogs or wheat?
I could understand how wheat could be changed, but dogs? Unless we use a different DNA in a dog,,,but the DNA is already in existence...

"Though speciation has been demonstrated in laboratories, no event beyond speciation has ever been demonstrated."

Beyond speciation? That's not even a thing. He accepts speciation, but not the Theory of Evolution? That's just stupid, what does he think the TOE is attempting to explain?

I'm as stupid as he is!
What is speciation...doesn't that mean one species changing into another?
And what is this TOE you're all talking about?

"Charles Darwin clearly delineated the differences between speciation and general evolution, and noted that the support for general evolution would have to come from the fossil record."

Did he? I'm going to say that Darwin said no such thing, speciation is evolution in action.

Is speciation what I call microevolution
and general evolution what I call macroevolution??

"In ''The Origin of Species,'' Darwin noted that without the appropriate fossil evidence (which did not exist in his day) his general theory would hold no weight."

Another lie? He said no such thing as far as I'm aware. Although he did bemoan the fact that the fossil record was woefully incomplete.

I don't know what good fossil evidence is anyway since it shows differing species at different times but it doesn't show the evolution in progress...

"He and others tenaciously clung to the hope that the unfolding of the fossil record would show all of the intermediate forms necessary to support his claims. Today, however, with more than 100,000 species represented in fossils, the lack of intermediate forms is even greater than it was in Darwin's day."

Two falsehoods in one, he didn't hope the fossil record would show "all" of the intermediate forms. Secondly, enough intermediate forms have since been found to validate his claims. Ask a paleontologist.

This answers my previous question...
I never hear of these intermediate forms...I will look into it. But what kind of intermediate forms? Within the same species???

"Not only has the fossil record failed, but findings of modern scientists have made general evolutionary theory even less tenable."

A complete lie of course, molecular biology, the mapping of our genomes etc has provided a slam dunk that Darwin couldn't have dreamed of... ask a geneticist.

Hmmm. I do think Stephen Meyers spoke to this. I'd have to listen to the interview again. Care to recommend anyone else? (that agrees with your statement)

"In ''Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,'' for example, Michael Denton methodically analyzes a wealth of evidence that challenges this theory. His subjects include the failure of homology (homologous structures not being represented by homologous genes nor embryonic development); the typological nature of microbiology, and problems associated with chance as a directive force, in addition to the lack of a supportive fossil record."

Will be reading up on Denton. This also answers my previous question. Sorry about this.... I'm reading as I go because it's so long.

I haven't read Denton's book.... these guys have though....

Reviews by parties within the scientific community were vehemently negative, with several attacking flaws in Denton's arguments. Biologist and philosopher Michael Ghiselin described A Theory in Crisis as "a book by an author who is obviously incompetent, dishonest, or both — and it may be very hard to decide which is the case" and that his "arguments turn out to be flagrant instances of the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion."[4]

Biologist Walter P. Coombs writing in Library Journal said that Denton "details legitimate questions, some as old as Darwin's theory, some as new as molecular biology, but he also distorts or misrepresents other 'problems'" and that "much of the book reads like creationist prattle, but there are also some interesting points."[5] Mark I. Vuletic, in an essay posted to the talk.origins Archive, presented a detailed argument that Denton's attempts to make an adequate challenge to evolutionary biology fail, contending that Denton neither managed to undermine the evidence for evolution, nor demonstrated that macroevolutionary mechanisms are inherently implausible.[6]

Philip Spieth, Professor of Genetics at University of California, Berkeley, reviewed the book saying his conclusions are "erroneous" and wrote the book "could not pass the most sympathetic peer review" because "evolutionary theory is misrepresented and distorted; spurious arguments are advanced as disproof of topics to which the arguments are, at best, tangentially relevant; evolutionary biologists are quoted out of context; large portions of relevant scientific literature are ignored; dubious or inaccurate statements appear as bald assertions accompanied, more often than not, with scorn."[7]

Paleontologist Niles Eldredge in a review wrote that the book is "fraught with distortions" and utilized arguments similar to creationists.[8]

link

Read.

"Evolutionists, however, have yet to provide solid evidence, while they ignore all the evidence against them (demonstrating the real issue, I think: the exclusion of God from an active role in nature). All the while, they preach their gospel as fact and force-feed it to America's students, who swallow it in ignorance."

This is just stupid... many "evolutionists" are christian, muslim, hindu, whatever.

And to pretend that there is no evidence is just idiotic.

Yes, but you do have to admit that it's taught as fact.
Stephen Meyers, BTW, did say exactly the same as the writer you're quoting (which was my link).
SM's also said that science has to revolve around hypothesis that are not connected to intelligent design and that this hinders them in their research.

click to expand

 

[GodsGrace101]

FYI, but Stephen Meyer isn't an authority in biology.

If you want to evaluate if someone is an authority (i.e. an expert) in a particular field, you need to look at their credentials, their employment track record and for scientists in particular their research areas and publication record.

In the case of Meyer he has neither a background in biology nor has ever worked as or published as a professional biologist. Mostly he writes pop-sci Intelligent Design books which have historically have been picked apart by actual biologists due to the numerous errors they contain.

Is the origin of life only concerned with biology? (or V V)
What about chemistry?
Does it take chemicals to begin life?

Why do you limit it to biology? It seems to me that there are other sciences also involved in life creation.

 

[pitabread]

Is the origin of life only concerned with biology? (or V V)
What about chemistry?
Does it take chemicals to begin life?

Why do you limit it to biology? It seems to me that there are other sciences also involved in life creation.

Meyer isn't a biochemist either.

If you really want an authority on origin of life research, I would suggest looking into the work of Jack Szostak and the work performed by his lab: Szostak Lab: Home

 

[Belk]

Is the origin of life only concerned with biology? (or V V)
What about chemistry?
Does it take chemicals to begin life?

Why do you limit it to biology? It seems to me that there are other sciences also involved in life creation.

The study of life is Biology. Certainly chemistry is involved in it but chemists do not study life.

 

[46AND2]

Correct me if I'm wrong,,,but I do believe the big bang theory has been accepted as how the universe began. There are other theories, of which I know only one and don't really understand it, but I believe that has also been discarded for the BB theory.

Depends on what you mean by "beginning of the universe." The Big Bang describes the beginning of space and time through the expansion of the universe from the singularity. But technically, the singularity was our universe in a different form.

Something coming from nothing is very relevant because the SOMETHING had to start somehwere, and WHERE and HOW did it start from NOTHING.

How do you know? Have you ever seen something start, where there was nothing before? How do you know there wasn't always something? How do you know that the question of, for example, the singularity "starting" even makes sense, as it marks a point in time, and time did not exist with the singularity.

I do believe scientists are now agreed that before the BB there was nothing..this is problematic.

No. They don't. They don't even agree that there was a "before" the big bang. Time started with the big bang. There was no "before."

 

[lasthero]

Yes. But within his own species...changes could occur as they're needed.

Question: Do you accept that speciation can happen?

Also, do you accept that the Earth is billions of years old and organisms have been around for millions?