The theory of evilution seems to be contradictory.

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread had a clean up. Posts were removed that were violations and some were removed that responded to the violations. The violations included:
​

Blasphemy
It is considered blasphemy to insult or mock Christianity or any part of the Trinity-Father (God), Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit. Honest debate about the nature of God and Christian Theology is allowed, but derogatory remarks are not.

It is not okay to refer to Christianity as believing in fairytales, or to mock it in other ways. You may disagree, but not be disrespectful. ​

Flaming and Goading
● Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue.
● Do not attack another member's character or actions in any way, address only the content of their post and not the member personally.
● NO Goading. This includes images, cartoons, or smileys clearly meant to goad.

I really shouldn't need to explain this one. ​

Statement of Purpose and Off-Topic
Read and abide by each forum's Statement of Purpose; Statement of Purpose threads are sticky threads located at the top of the forum's page. Not all forums have a Statement of Purpose thread. Start threads that are relevant to that forum's stated purpose. Submit replies that are relevant to the topic of discussion.

The topic is not the Crusades or persecution. This is not General Apologetics. ​

Vulgarity and Profanity
Please do not post violent, disturbing, graphic, or sexually explicit images or text. Profanity or foul language is not allowed. This includes using punctuations or acronyms to bypass the profanity filter and a few non-censored words found here.

Some common words you may use in real life are not allowed here.


Reopening. ​

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Gene2.

You said.

Evolutionary biology doesn't have all the answers about the diversity and extent of life, nor does it have the answers about its origin. It doesn't pretend to either. We have clues about it, avenues of investigation and likely scenarios, but no solid answer.

At least there are some folk that understand that there are difficulties in attempting to answer the big questions.

Especially when so little is actually known about the events of the distant past.

 

[Gottservant]

Please, if possible - do not simplify an oversimplification of a contradictory summary of the difference between the possibility of most science, and the inevitability of entropy (with a misspelling, ____ ____ no one had faith in ____ ____ ____ first (thankyou) ____).

God is not trying to warn you, He was just telling me: I have been scolded enough (to know that the answer to a true scientist, is always (in principle) more data or something much more informative (perhaps ____ but ____ not necessarily ____ ____ preceptient ____ ____ ____).

 

[Gene2memE]

Hello Gene2.

You said.

At least there are some folk that understand that there are difficulties in attempting to answer the big questions.

Especially when so little is actually known about the events of the distant past.

This is not to say that I accept supernatural creation, or reject evolution as the best answer to the questions about human origins, or the origins of life (a not entirely unrelated question, but an entirely different scientific discipline).

Acknowledging that the current body of knowledge about evolutionary biology is incomplete is not the same as saying that this is a weakness in the Theory of Evolution.

There may be bits of the picture missing, but we have the broad brush strokes. These have been filled in through the last 150 years of painstaking research.

What we are doing now is revealing the detail in those brushstrokes. Both in the deep past, and in the present.

Of course there is difficulty about extrapolating and interpreting events in the far past. The history of life is ~3.7 billion years. Multicellular life is ~2.1 billion years old. Complex multicellular life is about 580 million years old.

By their nature, fossils are rare. They are also distributed and hard to discover, being buried under the ground hidden from view. Still, we have millions of the things, from simple algae though to sessile Ediacara fans to pre-Cambrian sea-life and the multitude of hominids in the Quaternary.

Your original line of questions shows that you're unfamiliar with evolution in general and homonid evolution in particular. Asking questions is a good start, there are lots of people that will help you, here and elsewhere.

I suggest though, that you educate yourself. But some of the books mentioned in this thread and start educating yourself about evolution. Its a difficult, time consuming, frustrating but ultimately rewarding and enlightening subject.

noli cedere cognoscere - don't cease to learn

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Gene2memE.

You stated the following in your reply.

Acknowledging that the current body of knowledge about evolutionary biology is incomplete is not the same as saying that this is a weakness in the Theory of Evolution. There may be bits of the picture missing, but we have the broad brush strokes. These have been filled in through the last 150 years of painstaking research. What we are doing now is revealing the detail in those brushstrokes. Both in the deep past, and in the present.Of course there is difficulty about extrapolating and interpreting events in the far past. The history of life is ~3.7 billion years.

May I disagree with everything you stated Gene2, may I reject every one of your statements except one?

I hope you are not offended, I am not attacking you personaly, just the claims you are making.

Your claims above are based on very speculative assumptions.

1) One assumption, the principle of geological actualism (uniformatarianism), all past geological
action was similiar to all present geological action. When we study the geological past, we do
not really know what actually happened. What time intervals were involved in various geological
events. What forces came into play. Is this a safe assumption, uniformatarianism, to make?

2) You assume, all the required data sets are available to science, there is no data set missing
that may alter any given theory. For example in astrophysics, is all the data available to observe
and understand? For example, we know only four percent is observable data, ninety six percent
is not available to examine. We may need to return to alchemy and propose less assumptions.
Astrophysics is inviting everyone to join them, they need help, must find dark matter, must find
dark matter.

3) What degree of certainty do you attach to any of these claims that you made?

4) Is the universe the result of so called 'natural' forces, are there any other forces in play that
we have not detected? Can we detect and understand all possible forces? Are we even close
to understanding matter, given the results of the Hadron Collider. A second run coming up soon,
may warrant a entire change in current thinking in particle physics. We also may need to build
another collider altogether, the present one may not be adequate, only cost a few billion.

4) Do other dimensions exist (String theory), and do these dimensions have any effect
on the theories you proposed?

5) Can radiometric dating be assumed to be a reliable tool for dating purposes?
Confirmation of radiometric dating is obtained from distant galaxies I think, but
is it ever safe to assume that cosmic radiation is not a major player in the game?

6) Does science exceed the limitations of the scientific method, by making statements
about events in the distant past. When the precise rates, time durations, forces involved,
are not accurately known. Some scientist think we cannot extrapolate, what do you think?

7) In many calculations there exists constants, are there in fact constants in the physical
universe that never alter. Over the course of millions of years have any constants changed?
That’s the first axiom by the way of radiometric dating techniques: the half life of a given
nuclide is a constant.

How do we verify your claims beyond the assumption base?

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Hello Gene2memE.

You stated the following in your reply.

May I disagree with everything you stated Gene2, may I reject every one of your statements except one?

No.

You cannot deny the facts with out being exposed as a loon. Willful ignorance is the phrase we find in the Bible. It could apply to all YECs. Your 7 questions are merely 7 more examples that you have no idea of the content of a freshman college textbook in any science.

For example, "Are Constants Constant?" Yes they are; http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2010/08/are-constants-constant.html

 

[The Barbarian]

Your claims above are based on very speculative assumptions.

You have that wrong about his statement. Let's take a look...

When we study the geological past, we do not really know what actually happened. What time intervals were involved in various geological events. What forces came into play. Is this a safe assumption, uniformatarianism, to make?

I don't think you know what "uniformitarianism" means. And yes, we can understand what happened in various geological processes, because we can observe them happening today.

What we don't know is never an objection to what we do know.

Can radiometric dating be assumed to be a reliable tool for dating purposes?

It's been checked with events of known age, and it works. It correctly dated the pyroclastic flow that buried Pompeii, for example.

Does science exceed the limitations of the scientific method, by making statements
about events in the distant past.

No. Such predictions are often checkable by other evidence.

Some scientist think we cannot extrapolate,

Engineers and scientists do it constantly. And more often than not, they are correct.


Of course we can't rule out that in the past, geology fairies built mountains and laid layer of sediment, and then the system switched over to the one we have today, just before we showed up to see it.

But it doesn't seem very likely, does it?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Of course we can't rule out that in the past, geology fairies built mountains and laid layer of sediment, and then the system switched over to the one we have today, just before we showed up to see it.

But it doesn't seem very likely, does it?

It seems very likely that God fashioned the environment just for us. (Thank you Lord. ) Plants and animals just the right size, great weather, no dinosaurs, abundant resources, etc.

 

[ecco]

You have that wrong about his statement. Let's take a look...

Of course we can't rule out that in the past, geology fairies built mountains and laid layer of sediment, and then the system switched over to the one we have today, just before we showed up to see it.

Nor can we rule out Last Thursdayism:

Last Thursdayism refers to the idea that the universe may have been created last Thursday, but with the physical appearance of being billions of years old. Under this notion, people's memories, history books, fossils, light already on the way from distant stars, and so forth would all have been formed at the time of creation (last Thursday) in a state that causes them to appear to be older.​

 

[Goonie]

Nor can we rule out Last Thursdayism:

Last Thursdayism refers to the idea that the universe may have been created last Thursday, but with the physical appearance of being billions of years old. Under this notion, people's memories, history books, fossils, light already on the way from distant stars, and so forth would all have been formed at the time of creation (last Thursday) in a state that causes them to appear to be older.​

And don't forget last Tuesdayism "splitters!"

 

[klutedavid]

No.

You cannot deny the facts with out being exposed as a loon. Willful ignorance is the phrase we find in the Bible. It could apply to all YECs. Your 7 questions are merely 7 more examples that you have no idea of the content of a freshman college textbook in any science.

For example, "Are Constants Constant?" Yes they are; http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2010/08/are-constants-constant.html

Hello GS Hurd.

Two papers, published in the European Physics Journal D in March, attempt to derive the speed of light from the quantum properties of space itself. Both propose somewhat different mechanisms, but the idea is that the speed of light might change as one alters assumptions about how elementary particles interact with radiation. Both treat space as something that isn't empty, but a great big soup of virtual particles that wink in and out of existence in tiny fractions of a second. (LiveScience)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Nor can we rule out Last Thursdayism:

Last Thursdayism refers to the idea that the universe may have been created last Thursday, but with the physical appearance of being billions of years old. Under this notion, people's memories, history books, fossils, light already on the way from distant stars, and so forth would all have been formed at the time of creation (last Thursday) in a state that causes them to appear to be older.​

Yes; that explanation seems every bit as plausible as any other if you assume an omnipotent, omniscient God.

On the other hand, why would an omnipotent, omniscient God actually create a universe at all, knowing exactly how it would work out before even starting? Wouldn't such an all-knowing entity be entirely self-sufficient & self-contained (being everything!) - not curious, not bored, not wanting, not needing?​

 

[klutedavid]

Yes; that explanation seems every bit as plausible as any other if you assume an omnipotent, omniscient God.

On the other hand, why would an omnipotent, omniscient God actually create a universe at all, knowing exactly how it would work out before even starting? Wouldn't such an all-knowing entity be entirely self-sufficient & self-contained (being everything!) - not curious, not bored, not wanting, not needing?​

Hello FrumiousBandersnatch.

Perhaps because God loves so much, that God creates other creatures so they can experience love.

1 John 4:8
The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Hello GS Hurd.

Two papers, published in the European Physics Journal D in March, attempt to derive the speed of light from the quantum properties of space itself. Both propose somewhat different mechanisms, but the idea is that the speed of light might change as one alters assumptions about how elementary particles interact with radiation. Both treat space as something that isn't empty, but a great big soup of virtual particles that wink in and out of existence in tiny fractions of a second. (LiveScience)

Your source is a popular news item from an on-line magazine that favors wild and exotic speculation over actually demonstrated results. I actual offered you a quick summary of actual published empirical results. The unavoidable conclusion is that the speed of light had been constant for no less than 6 billion years. "Are Constants Constant?" Yes they are; http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2010/08/are-constants-constant.html

 

[klutedavid]

Your source is a popular news item from an on-line magazine that favors wild and exotic speculation over actually demonstrated results. I actual offered you a quick summary of actual published empirical results. The unavoidable conclusion is that the speed of light had been constant for no less than 6 billion years. "Are Constants Constant?" Yes they are; http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2010/08/are-constants-constant.html

Is the speed of light a constant?

Michelson and Morley expected a small, finite result and found zero. Murphy, Flambaum and Webb expected zero and found a very small, but statistically significant effect. These researchers hasten to add that the effect is small, is observed only in the very young universe (and is therefore not in disagreement with other determinations of α in more recent times). They also stress that the results are so unexpected that they really call for a replication by other, independent researchers using independent data from the same era. Nevertheless, their work is a tantalising hint that the laws of Nature might change on cosmological time scales or distances. It is interesting to speculate, for instance, that they might have changed somewhat in the very early universe, when some seriously weird things seem to have happened, but have stabilised early on. But that is speculation.
(Is the speed of light constant? "Varying constants", Beyond Relativity, University of New South Wales)

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Is the speed of light a constant?
(Is the speed of light constant? "Varying constants", Beyond Relativity, University of New South Wales)

From your reference, "These researchers hasten to add that the effect is small, is observed only in the very young universe (and is therefore not in disagreement with other determinations of α in more recent times)."

Right- like no change for at least the last 6 billion years (if ever).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Perhaps because God loves so much, that God creates other creatures so they can experience love.

That raises the old suffering question. The evidence suggests that love is something experienced by only a tiny minority of creatures (e.g. higher mammals) and even for those, the acute suffering of the majority makes it seem a poor deal overall. Nature, red in tooth & claw, and all that.

And it doesn't really explain why an omnipotent, omniscient being would feel the need to do anything.

 

[klutedavid]

That raises the old suffering question. The evidence suggests that love is something experienced by only a tiny minority of creatures (e.g. higher mammals) and even for those, the acute suffering of the majority makes it seem a poor deal overall. Nature, red in tooth & claw, and all that.

And it doesn't really explain why an omnipotent, omniscient being would feel the need to do anything.

Hello FrumiousBandersnatch.

Impossible to understand why God acts in the way he does. Guess you would have to be
God to understand that. The Biblical God is love!

 

[klutedavid]

From your reference, "These researchers hasten to add that the effect is small, is observed only in the very young universe (and is therefore not in disagreement with other determinations of α in more recent times)."

Right- like no change for at least the last 6 billion years (if ever).

Hello GS HURD.

It is interesting what you find when you start digging.

SI (Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted:

The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval
of 1/299,792,458 of a second.

The SI definition makes certain assumptions about the laws of physics.

One such assumption is that the particle of light, the photon, is massless.

So does the photon have mass?

Photons are traditionally said to be massless.

Is there any experimental evidence that a photon has zero rest mass?

It is almost certainly impossible to do any experiment that would establish the photon rest mass
to be exactly zero.

Any such possible photon rest mass is certainly too small to have any practical significance for the definition of the metre in the foreseeable future, but it cannot be shown to be exactly zero—even though currently accepted theories indicate that it is. If the mass weren't zero, the speed of light would not be constant; but from a theoretical point of view we would then take c to be the upper limit of the speed of light in vacuum so that we can continue to ask whether c is constant. For an in-depth analysis of the speed of light in an accelerated frame, see Chapter 7 of "Explorations in Mathematical Physics" by D. Koks (Springer, 2006).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

................... why would an omnipotent, omniscient God actually create a universe at all, knowing exactly how it would work out before even starting? Wouldn't such an all-knowing entity be entirely self-sufficient & self-contained (being everything!) - not curious, not bored, not wanting, not needing?​

We cannot assume that God wasn't curious, bored, or wanting or needing, as we don't know what took place before the material creation. What we do have is a definite physical pattern, male and female, that we can use to try and understand the nature of God.​