Fossil Challenge for Evolutionists

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Until the 60's or 80's science believed the universe always existed. Ooops. NOW they don't and science says it came into being but they don't know how.
Would you say this is SOMETHING from NOTHING?
I THINK SO....

The fact of the matter is that we don't know where the universe we see around us came from. The earliest time our observations can tell us about was 13.8 billion years ago, when it was so hot and dense that we can't say what, if anything, happened prior to that. When scientists say the universe was created 13.8 billion years ago, they mean the universe as we know it.

There is a wide variety of models for how our universe may have arisen and/or what happened prior to the earliest time we can infer from observation.

I see Lawrence Krauss trying to prove now that SOMETHING can come from NOTHING....
What more needs to be said?

If you read his book, you'll see that he uses the word 'nothing' in a number of ways - and takes great pains to explain exactly what he means by it in each case, to forestall just that kind of misleading implication.

Just as we commonly say, "there's nothing in the cupboard" when the cupboard is empty except for air, he makes the point that 'empty' spacetime, i.e. spacetime with no particles or forces (the void), is often called 'nothing', but is a source of continual oscillations of quantum fields, and has the potential to phase-change to a different state, producing a new kind of spacetime, a new expanding universe. Likewise, it seems likely that spacetime itself is emergent from an 'emptier' state, another kind of 'nothing', which has the potential to spontaneously generate spacetime universes.

You can argue with the physics or the mathematics underlying it, and you can disagree with his interpretations, but misrepresenting him is ignorant.

E.T.C. origin date

 

[GodsGrace101]

What you actually said was "a new complex trait (such as new organ)".

Do you see how completing the quote makes a HUGE difference? Try being honest once in a while, you may find it refreshing.

Such As.....
Is an example...and does not necessarily have to apply exactly to what is being spoken of.

A water tower
and the Eiffel Tower are both towers but are different.

He meant that language is a new and complex trait...
SUCH AS growing a new organ.

I don't think anyone here is so dumb as to thing that language is an organ....

 

[GodsGrace101]

The fact of the matter is that we don't know where the universe we see around us came from. The earliest time our observations can tell us about was 3.4 billion years ago, when it was so hot and dense that we can't say what, if anything, happened prior to that. When scientists say the universe was created 3.4 billion years ago, they mean the universe as we know it.

There is a wide variety of models for how our universe may have arisen and/or what happened prior to the earliest time we can infer from observation.

If you read his book, you'll see that he uses the word 'nothing' in a number of ways - and takes great pains to explain exactly what he means by it in each case, to forestall just that kind of misleading implication.

Just as we commonly say, "there's nothing in the cupboard" when the cupboard is empty except for air, he makes the point that 'empty' spacetime, i.e. spacetime with no particles or forces (the void), is often called 'nothing', but is a source of continual oscillations of quantum fields, and has the potential to phase-change to a different state, producing a new kind of spacetime, a new expanding universe. Likewise, it seems likely that spacetime itself is emergent from an 'emptier' state, another kind of 'nothing', which has the potential to spontaneously generate spacetime universes.

You can argue with the physics or the mathematics underlying it, and you can disagree with his interpretations, but misrepresenting him is ignorant.

You just called me ignorant.
Do I call YOU ignorant because you don't believe a God DOES exist?

NOTHING MEANS NOTHING.
If a man has to explain what that means then HE is ignorant.

There can be no empty space...there could be dark matter, anything could be...but the English language cannot be changed:
NOTHING MEANS NOTHING.

And no matter what Krauss says...
LIFE cannot come from NOTHING.

THIS is the point....not the explanation of what HE means by a word that has already been in use thousands of years.

Let him make up a NEW word for what is between visible objects.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Define what you mean by information in DNA. This is another false argument that creationists often use. There is no need for an outside source for this concept that you probably cannot define.

Since you already know I can't define it,,,
I guess I won't.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I am getting that you did get answers about the Cambrian explosion. Getting answers that you did not like is still being answered. But I can give it a shot. And you do not seem to understand that evolution does not rely on any specific course for first life. So that is a failed attempt to move the goalposts on your part.

I just talk. I don't know what moving the goal posts means, but I could imagine. If I have to follow very specific rules to talk, then I'll just give up the talking.
Like fallacies. I don't really care if I fall into any given fallacy or not..I just talk.

I also know evolution has nothing to do with first life.
But it comes up....first you have to have life, then it might evolve or it might not. Evolve means different things to different persons.

As to the Cambrian explosion...no - no one has answered me.

Maybe because no one can?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The fact of the matter is that we don't know where the universe we see around us came from. The earliest time our observations can tell us about was 3.4 billion years ago, when it was so hot and dense that we can't say what, if anything, happened prior to that. When scientists say the universe was created 3.4 billion years ago, they mean the universe as we know it.

There is a wide variety of models for how our universe may have arisen and/or what happened prior to the earliest time we can infer from observation.

If you read his book, you'll see that he uses the word 'nothing' in a number of ways - and takes great pains to explain exactly what he means by it in each case, to forestall just that kind of misleading implication.

Just as we commonly say, "there's nothing in the cupboard" when the cupboard is empty except for air, he makes the point that 'empty' spacetime, i.e. spacetime with no particles or forces (the void), is often called 'nothing', but is a source of continual oscillations of quantum fields, and has the potential to phase-change to a different state, producing a new kind of spacetime, a new expanding universe. Likewise, it seems likely that spacetime itself is emergent from an 'emptier' state, another kind of 'nothing', which has the potential to spontaneously generate spacetime universes.

You can argue with the physics or the mathematics underlying it, and you can disagree with his interpretations, but misrepresenting him is ignorant.

3.4 billion years? That would make the Earth older than the universe. How about 13.8 billion years?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You just called me ignorant.
Do I call YOU ignorant because you don't believe a God DOES exist?

NOTHING MEANS NOTHING.
If a man has to explain what that means then HE is ignorant.

There can be no empty space...there could be dark matter, anything could be...but the English language cannot be changed:
NOTHING MEANS NOTHING.

And no matter what Krauss says...
LIFE cannot come from NOTHING.

THIS is the point....not the explanation of what HE means by a word that has already been in use thousands of years.

Let him make up a NEW word for what is between visible objects.

Oops, looks like I hit a raw nerve... I'm sorry, should have said it was a mistake, rather than it was ignorant, because it's understandable you might get the wrong impression from the book title; for that, I apologise.

But if you try to use a provocative title to bolster your argument without troubling to find out what it really means, that's what can happen.

As I said, and as Krauss explains throughout his book, 'nothing' has always meant different things at different times and in different contexts.

"Now, move along, there's nothing to see..."

 

[Subduction Zone]

I just talk. I don't know what moving the goal posts means, but I could imagine. If I have to follow very specific rules to talk, then I'll just give up the talking.
Like fallacies. I don't really care if I fall into any given fallacy or not..I just talk.

I also know evolution has nothing to do with first life.
But it comes up....first you have to have life, then it might evolve or it might not. Evolve means different things to different persons.

As to the Cambrian explosion...no - no one has answered me.

Maybe because no one can?

What was your question about the Cambrian explosion? Just a warning, creationist sources often very dishonestly distort what happened.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

3.4 billion years? That would make the Earth older than the universe. How about 13.8 billion years?

Sorry, my mistake - I was using the estimate for first appearance of life!

I'll correct it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since you already know I can't define it,,,
I guess I won't.

Then don't use terms that you cannot define nor do not understand. No creationist has been able to define "information" in a way that supports their claims yet. We know how "new information" gets in the genome. Like it or not every mutation is by definition "new information" . Natural selection eliminates the bad mutations and promotes the positive ones. It is just that simple.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, my mistake - I was using the estimate for first appearance of life!

I'll correct it.

well you know I never make mistokes

 

[sfs]

You don't believe the info in DNA happened by chance?

Then how did it happen?

No scientist knows how the very first information in DNA got there -- there is currently no scientific theory explaining the origin of the first DNA-carrying cell. (Lots of intriguing hints and ideas, but no worked-out theory, that is.) We do have an excellent idea about where most information in DNA comes from: it comes from random mutations filtered by natural selection. That process can generate large amounts of functional information in DNA.

Some on this thread must lean on language because, truth be told....they DO NOT KNOW how life got started.
Which has to happen BEFORE even talking about evolution.

The origin of life had to happen before evolution got started, but we don't need to know where life came from to study its subsequent changes. If we are able to show that life arose by chemical processes, that will make no difference to evolutionary biology. If we are able to show that it required a miracle to get started, that will also make no difference to evolutionary biology.

150 years later and we're still debating it. I mean scientists...I don't mean US here on this thread.

Scientists are not debating whether we are the product of evolution. (I mean sure, you can find a few nut-cases who will debate absolutely anything. But no one acting in their capacity of scientist is debating the reality of common descent. It's just not happening.)

 

[GodsGrace101]

Oops, looks like I hit a raw nerve... I'm sorry, should have said it was a mistake, rather than it was ignorant, because it's understandable you might get the wrong impression from the book title; for that, I apologise.

But if you try to use a provocative title to bolster your argument without troubling to find out what it really means, that's what can happen.

As I said, and as Krauss explains throughout his book, 'nothing' has always meant different things at different times and in different contexts.

"Now, move along, there's nothing to see..."

What provocative title?

What I say is not a mistake, it's how I understand.
I've heard Krauss a lot talking about his book...He's desperate to figure out a way to explain how nothing means something different because NOW science has to deal with the universe coming into creation FROM nothing....Before science just said it always existed...so they have a bigger problem now.

The raw nerve is that I like to be treated how I treat others. I've always treated you with respect even though you've even made fun of Jesus knocking on the door...actually, I thought it was kind of funny, but nonetheless true.

And all this saving us stuff is nonsense.
Jesus is the Word of God...He spoke for God.
To teach us how to be here and now...and, if we're interested, how to be with God forever after death.
I don't think people that don't believe in God are dumb or ignorant...I do feel like they haven't accepted the Light.

 

[GodsGrace101]

No scientist knows how the very first information in DNA got there -- there is currently no scientific theory explaining the origin of the first DNA-carrying cell. (Lots of intriguing hints and ideas, but no worked-out theory, that is.) We do have an excellent idea about where most information in DNA comes from: it comes from random mutations filtered by natural selection. That process can generate large amounts of functional information in DNA.

Whew! And this is all I'm saying!
We do not know how the language of creation got into DNA....I'm speaking about nucleotides...

Not all scientists believe this all happened by chance after billions of years...some believe an intelligent force put the information there.

So, if we can't say for sure HOW it got there, maybe we could (at least on this thread) not claim that everything is proven and accepted by everyone.

The origin of life had to happen before evolution got started, but we don't need to know where life came from to study its subsequent changes. If we are able to show that life arose by chemical processes, that will make no difference to evolutionary biology. If we are able to show that it required a miracle to get started, that will also make no difference to evolutionary biology.

Agreed. My thought, however, is that if someone started life,,,maybe that same someone programmed micro evolution into each living being...it's animals changing from one thing to another that gives us normal folk a problem...And fossil records don't seem to be of any help. I see strada, I see animals,,,seems to me there should be more intermediary forms of life. I know I could be wrong because I don't understand this very well....but some scientists agree with me.

Scientists are not debating whether we are the product of evolution. (I mean sure, you can find a few nut-cases who will debate absolutely anything. But no one acting in their capacity of scientist is debating the reality of common descent. It's just not happening.)

By common descent, do you mean apes and humans?
Or do you mean a one cell life form turning into us?
Due to our difference from other apes,,,and we are similar to them,,,I do feel that something had to intervene to cause this great difference in us.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What provocative title?

What I say is not a mistake, it's how I understand.
I've heard Krauss a lot talking about his book...He's desperate to figure out a way to explain how nothing means something different because NOW science has to deal with the universe coming into creation FROM nothing....Before science just said it always existed...so they have a bigger problem now.

The raw nerve is that I like to be treated how I treat others. I've always treated you with respect even though you've even made fun of Jesus knocking on the door...actually, I thought it was kind of funny, but nonetheless true.

And all this saving us stuff is nonsense.
Jesus is the Word of God...He spoke for God.
To teach us how to be here and now...and, if we're interested, how to be with God forever after death.
I don't think people that don't believe in God are dumb or ignorant...I do feel like they haven't accepted the Light.

Please, let's not use false claims about others. If you want to claim that Krauss is "desperate" you put a huge burden of proof upon yourself and as a Christian one should avoid such claims since one quite often breaks the Ninth Commandment by doing so. You may be projecting your flaws upon others. Many believers simply want to believe. Scientists want to know. That can be shown by the sources tat one uses. For example I find most Christian apologist sites to be extremely dishonest. They make excuses for how the Bible might be true instead of trying to see if it actually true. Many will defend claims in the Bible known to be wrong. For science discussions it is best to rely on the findings of scientists. What Krauss's book shows is that the universe coming from "nothing" does not break any of the laws of physics. It is not an attempt to refute the existence of God.

 

[Steve Petersen]

How life may have developed from non-life. This is a hypothesis, not a theory. I hope you all know the difference:

https://phys.org/news/2019-04-blocks-dna-rna-life-began.html

Prebiotic phosphorylation of 2-thiouridine provides either nucleotides or DNA building blocks via photoreduction

 

[Subduction Zone]

Whew! And this is all I'm saying!
We do not know how the language of creation got into DNA....I'm speaking about nucleotides...

Not all scientists believe this all happened by chance after billions of years...some believe an intelligent force put the information there.

So, if we can't say for sure HOW it got there, maybe we could (at least on this thread) not claim that everything is proven and accepted by everyone.


Agreed. My thought, however, is that if someone started life,,,maybe that same someone programmed micro evolution into each living being...it's animals changing from one thing to another that gives us normal folk a problem...And fossil records don't seem to be of any help. I see strada, I see animals,,,seems to me there should be more intermediary forms of life. I know I could be wrong because I don't understand this very well....but some scientists agree with me.


By common descent, do you mean apes and humans?
Or do you mean a one cell life form turning into us?
Due to our difference from other apes,,,and we are similar to them,,,I do feel that something had to intervene to cause this great difference in us.

It would help if you avoided leading phrases and terms such as the "language of creation". You are making the error of assuming something that has no evidence to support it. It is hard for others to take you seriously when such prejudicial language is used. If I used such language to support atheism here it would not only be incorrect to do so, it would also lead to repercussions from the moderators here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How life may have developed from non-life. This is a hypothesis, not a theory. I hope you all know the difference:

https://phys.org/news/2019-04-blocks-dna-rna-life-began.html

Prebiotic phosphorylation of 2-thiouridine provides either nucleotides or DNA building blocks via photoreduction

And it may always remain one. From what I have seen there are now multiple pathways that may have led to life. If there is more than one viable means then we may never know which exact pathway was taken. Though contrary to what creationists claim as we learn more and more it appears that abiogenesis is very very possible.

 

[sfs]

Agreed. My thought, however, is that if someone started life,,,maybe that same someone programmed micro evolution into each living being

But we know how evolution works, and it's not programmed in.

it's animals changing from one thing to another that gives us normal folk a problem

It's scientists' job to explain how animals can change from one thing to another, and it's the job of non-scientists who want to discuss the issue to pay attention to what the scientists are saying.

By common descent, do you mean apes and humans?
Or do you mean a one cell life form turning into us?

Both.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Please, let's not use false claims about others. If you want to claim that Krauss is "desperate" you put a huge burden of proof upon yourself and as a Christian one should avoid such claims since one quite often breaks the Ninth Commandment by doing so. You may be projecting your flaws upon others. Many believers simply want to believe. Scientists want to know. That can be shown by the sources tat one uses. For example I find most Christian apologist sites to be extremely dishonest. They make excuses for how the Bible might be true instead of trying to see if it actually true. Many will defend claims in the Bible known to be wrong. For science discussions it is best to rely on the findings of scientists. What Krauss's book shows is that the universe coming from "nothing" does not break any of the laws of physics. It is not an attempt to refute the existence of God.

Oh,,,as a Christian I'm supposed to be perfect?
How disingenuous of you. You must know more about Christianity than you pretend to know -- then again, maybe you don't. Should I assume...like YOU have assumed things about me?

I'm not here as a Christian..I'm here as a human being. I've spoken about God only when it came up in conversation --- like you're doing right now.

Do you mean to tell me that:

Something cannnot be created from nothing

is NOT a law of physics?