Scientists Confirm: Darwinism Is Broken

Speedwell · Dec 16, 2016

Kenny'sID said:
Yes. Real science is just that, real science, but calling an opinion of what real science points to, actual science as happens here way too much, is not real science.

Like the term, "Science proves evolution" when it does not, the opinions of what real science points to is claimed to prove evolution.

No, science does not "prove" the theory of evolution. Science doesn't prove theories, it merely confirms them. It may also falsify them. Science confirms the theory of evolution, so far. It may falsify the theory someday, who knows? But I think what's bugging you is that science has already falsified creationism. Falsifying the theory of evolution won't bring it back.

SteveB28 · Dec 16, 2016

Kenny'sID said:
Yes. Real science is just that, real science, but calling an opinion of what real science points to, actual science as happens here way too much, is not real science.

This absolute mish-mash of a sentence conveys no meaning whatsoever. Explain your terms - what do "real" and "actual" mean? How does one distinguish between them? What are you trying to say, other than "I don't like evolution"?

Like the term, "Science proves evolution" when it does not, the opinions of what real science points to is claimed to prove evolution.

Who uses that term? Who has claimed that science "proves" anything?

You do not know what you are talking about.

.

Cearbhall · Dec 16, 2016

Kenny'sID said:
Excuse for what they (some scientists/some of you) wrongly derive.

What makes you think it's wrongly derived?

Kenny'sID said:
IOW calling it science excuses it being wrong and just opinion of what the real science actually points to.

Could you kindly point us to the "real science" and inform us of what you think it points to?

Subduction Zone · Dec 16, 2016

Kenny'sID said:
Yes. Real science is just that, real science, but calling an opinion of what real science points to, actual science as happens here way too much, is not real science.

I seriously doubt if you know what "real science " is.

Like the term, "Science proves evolution" when it does not, the opinions of what real science points to is claimed to prove evolution.

This is a poor misinterpretation on your part of what others say. Scientists have confirmed the theory of evolution millions of times. Theories can be tested. The theory of evolution has been tested millions of times. It has passed major tests and minor tests often result in the theory being changed a bit here and a bit there so that it better describes what happened in the past.

But if you accept it when Maury Povich (spelling?) shouts "You are the father" then you should accept it when the same evidence shows that you are related to chimpanzees. It is the exact same "science".

Meanwhile I don't know of any claims by creationists that have not been refuted. That is why creationists don't even try to explain creationism today. Instead they run on the false dichotomy that if they can refute evolution that that "proves" creationism. It of course does nothing of the sort. The burden of proof is still upon creationists and they do not seem to have one iota.

DennisTate · Dec 17, 2016

Armoured said:
And?

The question comes down to.....
where and when did intelligence begin?

Could intelligence and the ability to affect energy and invent matter.....
have began in fundamental or nearly fundamental energy that is assumed by
Stephen Hawking Ph. D. to have existed for something like infinite time in the past....

based on his statements in chapter 13 of his book, Stephen Hawking's Universe.

The title of that chapter is.... The Anthropic Principle.

Dr. Hawking postulates a variation of the Cyclic Model of the Universe in that chapter.
An Atheistic version of it.... .a much more Theistic or Agnostic version is quite possible
as well.

Where did Intelligence begin, in matter or fundamental energy?

Poll: Where did Intelligence begin, in matter or fundamental energy?

Subduction Zone · Dec 17, 2016

DennisTate said:
The question comes down to.....
where and when did intelligence begin?

Could intelligence and the ability to affect energy and invent matter.....
have began in fundamental or nearly fundamental energy that is assumed by
Stephen Hawking Ph. D. to have existed for something like infinite time in the past....

based on his statements in chapter 13 of his book, Stephen Hawking's Universe.

The title of that chapter is.... The Anthropic Principle.

Dr. Hawking postulates a variation of the Cyclic Model of the Universe in that chapter.
An Atheistic version of it.... .a much more Theistic or Agnostic version is quite possible
as well.

Where did Intelligence begin, in matter or fundamental energy?

Poll: Where did Intelligence begin, in matter or fundamental energy?

You need to define what you mean by "intelligence" .

SteveB28 · Dec 17, 2016

DennisTate said:
The question comes down to.....
where and when did intelligence begin?

Could intelligence and the ability to affect energy and invent matter.....
have began in fundamental or nearly fundamental energy that is assumed by
Stephen Hawking Ph. D. to have existed for something like infinite time in the past....

based on his statements in chapter 13 of his book, Stephen Hawking's Universe.

The title of that chapter is.... The Anthropic Principle.

Dr. Hawking postulates a variation of the Cyclic Model of the Universe in that chapter.
An Atheistic version of it.... .a much more Theistic or Agnostic version is quite possible
as well.

Where did Intelligence begin, in matter or fundamental energy?

Poll: Where did Intelligence begin, in matter or fundamental energy?

And here we go again with this old chestnut....

Asking where intelligence 'came from' is akin to asking where 'distance' came from. It isn't an entity....it's a metric; in this case, a metric for the level of cerebral capacity of an organism.

Your more correct question would be 'where do brains come from?'

.

DennisTate · Dec 17, 2016

Subduction Zone said:
You need to define what you mean by "intelligence" .

Think in terms of Artificial Intelligence!

Watch a few movie such as the one that Johnny Depp was recently in.........

So far as we know....... intelligence is somewhat like electricity moving around in a circuit.....

Fundamental energy should have been able to move around much more efficiently than
electricity.......

and perhaps what we term electricity... is an invention???

Should not a more fundamental form of energy be able to
move around in whatever type of circuitry existed.....
in Quantum Vacuum...... more efficiently than electricity.....
in the computers we are using?

www.CarbonBias.blogspot.ca/

"Although nature manifests four distinct forces, physicists believe that
each may be part of a smaller number of more primitive forces. At high energy, the electromagnetic and weak forces appear to merge into a single "electroweak" force. Some "grand unified theories" suggest that a further amalgamation takes place between the electroweak and strong forces at as yet unattained energies. The most ambitious unification schemes envisage an amalgamation of all four forces into a single "superforce" at ultra-high levels of energy."...

"The real burden in the next three centuries will not be the development of fancy mathematics, but the experimental testing of these ambitious theories. All current thinking about total unification assumes that the effects of linking all the forces and particles together will only become manifest at energies that are some trillion times greater than those currently attainable in particle accelerators. Probably we shall never reach such energies directly" ( A Theory of Everything" Volume 21 of "The World of Science)

DennisTate · Dec 17, 2016

SteveB28 said:
And here we go again with this old chestnut....

Asking where intelligence 'came from' is akin to asking where 'distance' came from. It isn't an entity....it's a metric; in this case, a metric for the level of cerebral capacity of an organism.

Your more correct question would be 'where do brains come from?'

.

Exactly!

And could we... carbon based life forms....
have a natural bias against non- carbon based life / intelligence?

Thus the title of my blog.... CarbonBias.blogspot.ca/

SteveB28 · Dec 17, 2016

DennisTate said:
Exactly!

And could we... carbon based life forms....
have a natural bias against non- carbon based life / intelligence?

Thus the title of my blog.... CarbonBias.blogspot.ca/

And where exactly is your evidence for this "non-carbon based life"?

.

DennisTate · Dec 17, 2016

SteveB28 said:
And where exactly is your evidence for this "non-carbon based life"?

.

Near death experience accounts are, in my opinion, an impressive form of
anecdotal evidence for this.

The correlation between what former Atheist Mellen Benedict reports being shown,
with chapter 13 of Stephen Hawking's Universe, (The Anthropic Principle), is simply
too great for me to regard this as mere coincidence.

near-death
.com/reincarnation/experiences/mellen-thomas-benedict.html#a05

When I say that I could see or perceive forever, I mean that I could experience all of creation generating itself. It was without beginning and without end. That's a mind-expanding thought, isn't it? Scientists perceive the Big Bang as a single event which created the universe. I saw that the Big Bang is only one of an infinite number of Big Bangs creating universes endlessly and simultaneously. The only images that even come close in human terms would be those created by supercomputers using fractal geometry equations.

The ancients knew of this. They said Godhead periodically created new universes by breathing out, and de-creating other universes by breathing in. These epochs were called yugas. Modern science called this the Big Bang. I was in absolute, pure consciousness. I could see or perceive all the Big Bangs or yugas creating and de-creating themselves. Instantly I entered into them all simultaneously. I saw that each and every little piece of creation has the power to create. It is very difficult to try to explain this. I am still speechless about this.

florida2 · Dec 17, 2016

DennisTate said:
Near death experience accounts are, in my opinion, an impressive form of
anecdotal evidence for this.

The correlation between what former Atheist Mellen Benedict reports being shown,
with chapter 13 of Stephen Hawking's Universe, (The Anthropic Principle), is simply
too great for me to regard this as mere coincidence.

near-death
.com/reincarnation/experiences/mellen-thomas-benedict.html#a05

Cool story, but that's all that can be said about it. NDEs cannot be used as evidence as of anything.

bhsmte · Dec 17, 2016

florida2 said:
Cool story, but that's all that can be said about it. NDEs cannot be used as evidence as of anything.

He really, really needs them to be though.

Subduction Zone · Dec 17, 2016

DennisTate said:
Think in terms of Artificial Intelligence!

Watch a few movie such as the one that Johnny Depp was recently in.........

So far as we know....... intelligence is somewhat like electricity moving around in a circuit.....

Fundamental energy should have been able to move around much more efficiently than
electricity.......

and perhaps what we term electricity... is an invention???

Should not a more fundamental form of energy be able to
move around in whatever type of circuitry existed.....
in Quantum Vacuum...... more efficiently than electricity.....
in the computers we are using?

www.CarbonBias.blogspot.ca/

Ummm .... no. Just no.

sfs · Dec 17, 2016

SteveB28 said:
"Real" science...??

You know -- the stuff that isn't performed by professional scientists, isn't done in scientific labs, isn't funded by science funding agencies and isn't described in the scientific literature. Real science.

bhsmte · Dec 17, 2016

sfs said:
You know -- the stuff that isn't performed by professional scientists, isn't done in scientific labs, isn't funded by science funding agencies and isn't described in the scientific literature. Real science.

Otherwise known as; "comforting science".

Kylie · Dec 18, 2016

Looking at the list of problems they present, I see nothing that can't be explained by evolution.

TagliatelliMonster · Dec 19, 2016

bhayes said:
So micro-evolution is basically textbook evolution. This is not going to be in depth but basically a trait is selected for and this trait is passed down to offspring. This is organisms adapting to their environment. Of course you can add on to this but the basic idea is descent with modification. As a result, a beetle, might get smaller when food is scarce etc, or a bird might grow lager wings etc etc. There are obviously extreme examples but the important point is that they remained the same "kind" as referenced in the bible. So a canine remains a canine, a fish remains a fish. Yes there are different kinds of fish, yes there are different kinds of plants and vegetation, but they remain in there kind. If you read the bible it says that all the creatures of the sea were created on the same day. So yes there are many different kinds of sea creatures within which variation occurs, but they are categorized as sea creatures, that is their environment. Likewise God created birds of the air, animals, creeping things (insects etc.), and plant yielding seeds. God also gave his creation wisdom.

This is not the same as macro evolution, which essentially says that Macroevolution is basically a belief that descent with modification can extend to different categories with which God created, so sea dwelling to land dwelling to flying to insects all come from a common origin. This is not the case, there is also no evidence for this, you can say the fossil record, but that is simply an interpretation, macroevolution has never been tested or observed, and it can never be tested or observed so it is taken by faith. What it boils down to is that from a solution of organic chemicals, all of variation and complexity on earth arises. That is what it boils down to. Interestingly if you listen to the first talk by Gerd Muller on the link I gave he says molecules aren't life, but God says "....everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day."

Wrong.

Micro/macro evolution are not "different" processes in evolution.
The only difference is the reference generation.

Evolution works by the gradual accumulation of small changes in the genome every generation.

Generation 1 is thus slightly different from generation 0.
Generation 2 is slightly different from generation 1.
Generation 3 is slightly different from generation 2.
Generation 4 is slightly different from generation 3.
Generation 5 is slightly different from generation 4.
Generation 6 is slightly different from generation 5.
...
Generation 1000 is slightly different from generation 999.

If we would then compare generation 1000 to generation 0, we'ld find that generation 1000 is vastly different from generation 0.

And that's what "macro" evolution is.

Consider walking a mile. The "micro-walk" would be taking a single step.
Every step gets you just a couple of feet further. After just one step, you'll find yourself in as-good-as the same place as you were before that single step.

After taking many hundreds of single steps, you'll have walked a mile. And you'll find yourself in a vastly different place as compared to the place where you started out with your first step.

That is the inevitable nature of accumulation of small changes.

TagliatelliMonster · Dec 19, 2016

bhayes said:
No and neither do you, that is my point. You believe what happens but you cant test it

Except that we CAN test it, off course, in multiple ways. The easiest is by far through DNA.

observe it so you take it by faith

No faith required, when you have testable and independently verifiable evidence.

TagliatelliMonster · Dec 19, 2016

bhayes said:
The burden of proof isn't on Christians its on atheists to demonstrate how this ordered and intelligent world functions with no apparent purpose or design behind it

The burden of proof is on the side that makes the positive claim.

In this case, that would be the side that positively claims that there is "design and purpose".

How it came from nothing

Ex-nihilo is a thing that is claimed by creationists....

The graph you posed is a nontestable theory

No, it's not. It's very testable using genetics and comparative anatomy, among others.

Scientists Confirm: Darwinism Is Broken

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Senior Member

Newbie

Defeater of Illogic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency