Why Evolution is True

[dad]

Taking a step back and reviewing how many 100's of billions of galaxies, and how many 100's of billions of stars in each galaxy, and how many innumerable planets & moons orbiting those stars for which life could have arisen, you have to figure the odds of some kind of life existing, over the whole lifespan of the universe (much of it still to be played out) to be almost a given & almost a certainty.

If they all were created there IS NO chance involved.

I see the cosmo folks have more egg in their standard model faces recently.

" Something is amiss in the Universe. There appears to be an enormous deficit of ultraviolet light in the cosmic budget. The vast reaches of empty space between galaxies are bridged by tendrils of hydrogen and helium, which can be used as a precise 'light meter.' In a recent study a team of scientists finds that the light from known populations of galaxies and quasars is not nearly enough to explain observations of intergalactic hydrogen. The difference is a stunning 400 percent."

Something is amiss in the Universe: Cosmic accounting reveals missing light crisis -- ScienceDaily

400% off!!! That beats 100% !!!!


"
The universe contains billions of galaxies. Some, such as the Milky Way, are immense, containing hundreds of billions of stars. Most galaxies, however, are dwarfs, much smaller and with only a few billion stars.
For decades astronomers have used computer models to predict how these dwarf galaxies should orbit large galaxies. They had always found that they should be scattered randomly."


...

"This is a big problem that contradicts our standard cosmological models. It challenges our understanding of how the universe works including the nature of dark matter."
The researchers believe the answer may be hidden in some currently unknown physical process that governs how gas flows in the universe, although, as yet, there is no obvious mechanism that can guide dwarf galaxies into narrow planes."




Mysterious dance of dwarf galaxies may force a cosmic rethink -- ScienceDaily



Kids, science stories of origins of the universe are fables, and not even internally consistent ones! God was right all along.

 

[Naturalism]

If they all were created there IS NO chance involved.

The point I was making is not that chance or no chance but that looking at the end results with only regards to life on earth (sample size of 1) and asserting astronomical numbers and ignoring all the other places life could exist is not reasonable.

Who could argue against even chance of life in the universe occurring when you have so many innumerable changes for it too occur? Under that view there is not even a need to think or presume life was created when there are so many chances.

Suppose we entertain your view that life was created (somehow?). OK, what evidence do you have to know this is true? Can this evidence be tested objectively? Is it consistent with other known facts of the universe?

I see the cosmo folks have more egg in their standard model faces recently. 400% off!!! That beats 100% !!!!

Science knowledge is a work in progress, it's not asserting Epistemological truths.

 

[CabVet]

If they all were created there IS NO chance involved.

If everything evolved, there IS NO chance involved.

 

[dad]

The point I was making is not that chance or no chance but that looking at the end results with only regards to life on earth (sample size of 1) and asserting astronomical numbers and ignoring all the other places life could exist is not reasonable.

It is very reasonable, if life is from God and created. How else do you think 'life could exist'??

Who could argue against even chance of life in the universe occurring when you have so many innumerable changes for it too occur?

Life is not about chance. It is more. Life is from God. The whole change thing is a dream, and utterly devoid or reason or proof. What have you gave life to lately?

Under that view there is not even a need to think or presume life was created when there are so many chances.

There are no chances with life.

Suppose we entertain your view that life was created (somehow?). OK, what evidence do you have to know this is true?

I am, therefore I was created. Who else is, and was not created?

Can this evidence be tested objectively? Is it consistent with other known facts of the universe?

We are here. We are alive. Check it out. Test it. Life is never found any other way but in a created situation.

Science knowledge is a work in progress, it's not asserting Epistemological truths.

If you admit having no truth to assert, fine! I got plenty!

 

[TLK Valentine]

Why are you so embarrassed at the thought of explaining your statement?

Who wouldn't be embarrassed to explain that statement?

 

[dad]

If everything evolved, there IS NO chance involved.

How did life get here TO evolve? How did it evolve in the right conditions? You claim no randomness was involved!!!? What would that leave but a designer?

 

[Naturalism]

How did life get here TO evolve?

No idea, once it started it began evolving. Again, I am merely contending that with such great numbers of many billions upon billions of chances for life to occur that anyone asserting it had to be designed is not acknowledging the numbers here.

How did it evolve in the right conditions?

As opposed to what? Evolution implies differential reproduction in accordance to the conditions.

You claim no randomness was involved!!!? What would that leave but a designer?

Is gravity random? No, not at all. Take a ball and drop it a billion times and it will always and without exception always fall towards the center mass of earth. I would say there is some contingency here in discussing how life started on earth, not that it had to occur on earth but that given the huge numbers of planets where life could start in the universe the odds are actually very good.

 

[TLK Valentine]

How did life get here TO evolve? How did it evolve in the right conditions?

What are the "right" conditions?

 

[Naturalism]

It is very reasonable, if life is from God and created. How else do you think 'life could exist'??

Asserting something is reasonable is not reasonable. Show some evidence for how it's reasonable. Show how we can test this assertion so we can be confident it's reasonable.

What have you gave life to lately?

I ma pretty sure others have reproduced (as have I) so that is a form of giving life.

There are no chances with life.

Are you saying that life is a given if planets exist?

I am, therefore I was created.

Your parents created you. Nice try though.

We are here. We are alive. Check it out. Test it. Life is never found any other way but in a created situation.

That we are here and alive doesn't answer if life occurring here or elsewhere is based upon chance or design. You're asserting a god created life, ok so show the evidence for this assertion & how we test it.

If you admit having no truth to assert, fine! I got plenty!

Science has no pretentions with asserting knowledge where it has lacking evidence, contrast that to religion. I said it doesn't assert Epistemological truth, not that it can't discover truths.

 

[dad]

No idea, once it started it began evolving.

Do not make a claim when you admit having no idea! Think about it.

Again, I am merely contending that with such great numbers of many billions upon billions of chances for life to occur that anyone asserting it had to be designed is not acknowledging the numbers here.

I do not acknowledge that you know the sizes of stars or galaxies, or that everything you think is a star really is! You have a belief system. A few posts back I just showed how silly that was. You predict dwarf galaxies should be randomly placed, in fact they apparently are ANYTHING BUT!

As opposed to what? Evolution implies differential reproduction in accordance to the conditions.

Evolution must have life to work! Your claim that life should exist and evolution the universe depends on there first having been life! This is not science or fact.

In essence, then you are stating a belief that life is not created but appeared randomly. Yet you have no proof this can happen. Pretty lame.

Is gravity random? No, not at all. Take a ball and drop it a billion times and it will always and without exception always fall towards the center mass of earth.

That depends on where gravity is. You need a physical environment to have gravity. If there is more than just physical stuff in the universe anywhere, then gravity is not what it is here!

I would say there is some contingency here in discussing how life started on earth, not that it had to occur on earth but that given the huge numbers of planets where life could start in the universe the odds are actually very good.

Forget trying to confuse the issue with great unknowns. How about right here on earth? You can't say how life started here! That kills your case something fierce.

 

[dad]

What are the "right" conditions?

No one has ever seen them have they? That means science is not able to comment rationally or reasonably.


How did Lazarus get life after being dead a few days? Jesus the creator gave it to him! Same deal with Adam when Adam was just dirt! Science has no other evidence or proof of where life comes from.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

If they all were created there IS NO chance involved.

I see the cosmo folks have more egg in their standard model faces recently.

" Something is amiss in the Universe. There appears to be an enormous deficit of ultraviolet light in the cosmic budget. The vast reaches of empty space between galaxies are bridged by tendrils of hydrogen and helium, which can be used as a precise 'light meter.' In a recent study a team of scientists finds that the light from known populations of galaxies and quasars is not nearly enough to explain observations of intergalactic hydrogen. The difference is a stunning 400 percent."

Something is amiss in the Universe: Cosmic accounting reveals missing light crisis -- ScienceDaily

400% off!!! That beats 100% !!!!


"
The universe contains billions of galaxies. Some, such as the Milky Way, are immense, containing hundreds of billions of stars. Most galaxies, however, are dwarfs, much smaller and with only a few billion stars.
For decades astronomers have used computer models to predict how these dwarf galaxies should orbit large galaxies. They had always found that they should be scattered randomly."


...

"This is a big problem that contradicts our standard cosmological models. It challenges our understanding of how the universe works including the nature of dark matter."
The researchers believe the answer may be hidden in some currently unknown physical process that governs how gas flows in the universe, although, as yet, there is no obvious mechanism that can guide dwarf galaxies into narrow planes."




Mysterious dance of dwarf galaxies may force a cosmic rethink -- ScienceDaily



Kids, science stories of origins of the universe are fables, and not even internally consistent ones! God was right all along.

Creationists and scientists approach new evidence that seems to oppose their ideas in very different ways.

Scientists rejoice. They have a new clue to the nature of reality, and they grab onto it and track it down and enlarge their understanding, eventually. They revel in the temporary contradictions. They base their ideas and understandings on the best possible evidence, and seek new ways to gather new evidence to help them get a better understanding.

Creationists deplore them. They view contrary evidence as an assault on everything they hold dear and seek ways - any way they can - to simply explain them away. They give high marks to the best combination of words that sooths the worries of the most creationists. Evidence has little or nothing to do with the results, its the best combination of words that are most effective at soothing worries that counts. Seeking out new evidence is allowed, but is worrisome, because it might confirm the earlier contradictory evidence.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

No one has ever seen them have they? That means science is not able to comment rationally or reasonably.


How did Lazarus get life after being dead a few days? Jesus the creator gave it to him! Same deal with Adam when Adam was just dirt! Science has no other evidence or proof of where life comes from.

The above denial of science having evidence or proof of where life comes from was written by a human who shares a couple hundred thousand retroviral insert fragments with chimpanzees and gorillas, evidence and proof of sharing a common ancestor with them according to the flesh.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No one has ever seen them have they? That means science is not able to comment rationally or reasonably.

You're the one who brought up "right conditions," in spite of having never seen them yourself, then.

How did Lazarus get life after being dead a few days? Jesus the creator gave it to him! Same deal with Adam when Adam was just dirt! Science has no other evidence or proof of where life comes from.

Science has ideas; you have fairy tales.

 

[createdtoworship]

Complete poppycock.

a, Eusthenopteron; b, Panderichthys; and c, Tiktaalik. d, Limb of Acanthostega

In Tiktaalik we see the emergence of digits not seen in Pandericthys and a shorter ulna that is transitional between Pandericthys and Acanthostega. You can also see points of articulation between the humerus and the radius/ulna in Tiktaalik. On top of that, Tiktaalik has other transitional features outside of the limbs, such as a freer neck.

Pandericthys is a transitional as well, don't forget.

It is this sort of denial straight through all of Luskin's work that makes it ignorable. Denial is not science. Quote mines are not science. Creationist websites are not peer reviewed papers.

you provide a slight argument here but without dealing with the review of the disimiliarities I provided with the casey luskin/ and more importantly AIG link below

"The limbs of tetrapods

The limbs of tetrapods share similar characteristic features. These unique features meet the special demands of walking on land. In the case of the forelimbs there is one bone nearest the body (proximal) called the humerus that articulates (flexibly joins) with two bones, the radius and ulna, further away from the body (distal). These in turn articulate with multiple wrist bones, which finally articulate with typically five digits. The hind limbs similarly consist of one proximal bone, the femur, which articulates with two distal bones, the tibia and fibula, which in turn articulate with ankle bones; and finally with typically five digits. In order to support the weight of the body on land, and permit walking, the most proximal bones of the limbs must be securely attached to the rest of the body. The humerus of the forelimb articulates with the pectoral girdle which includes the scapula (shoulder blade) and the clavicle (collar bone). The only bony attachment of the pectoral girdle to the body is the clavicle.

The femur of the hind limb articulates with the pelvic girdle, which consists of fused bones collectively called the pelvis (hip bone). It is this hind limb—with its robust pelvic girdle securely attached to the vertebral column—that differs radically from that of any fish. (The tetrapod arrangement is important for bearing the weight of the animal on land.)

All tetrapod limb bones and their attachment girdles are endochondral bones. In the case of all fish, including Tiktaalik, the cleithrum and fin rays are dermal bones.

It is significant that the “earliest” true tetrapods recognized by evolutionists (such as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega) have all of the distinguishing features of tetrapod limbs (and their attachment girdles) and were clearly capable of walking and breathing on land. The structural differences between the tetrapod leg and the fish fin is easily understood when we realize that the buoyant density of water is about a thousand times greater than that of air. A fish has no need to support much of its weight in water where it is essentially weightless.

The fins of fish (including Tiktaalik)

Essentially all fish (including Tiktaalik) have small pelvic fins relative to their pectoral fins. The legs of tetrapods are just the opposite: the hind limbs attached to the pelvic girdle are almost always more robust than the fore limbs attached to the pectoral girdle. (This is particularly obvious in animals such as kangaroos and theropod dinosaurs.) Not only are the pelvic fins of all fish small, but they’re not even attached to the axial skeleton (vertebral column) and thus can’t bear weight on land.

While the endochondral bones in the pectoral fins of Crossopterygians have some similarity to bones in the fore limbs of tetrapods, there are significant differences. For example, there is nothing even remotely comparable to the digits in any fish. The bony rays of fish fins are dermal bones that are not related in any way to digits in their structure, function or mode of development. Clearly, fin rays are relatively fragile and unsuitable for actual walking and weight bearing.

Even the smaller endochondral bones in the distal fin of Tiktaalik are not related to digits. Ahlberg and Clack point out that “although these small distal bones bear some resemblance to tetrapod digits in terms of their function and range of movement, they are still very much components of a fin. There remains a large morphological gap between them and digits as seen in, for example Acanthostega: if the digits evolved from these distal bones, the process must have involved considerable developmental rearranging.”


above section from:

https://answersingenesis.org/extinct-animals/tiktaalik-and-the-fishy-story-of-walking-fish-part-2/

 

[Loudmouth]

you provide a slight argument here but without dealing with the review of the disimiliarities I provided with the casey luskin/ and more importantly AIG link below

The fact that humans are dissimilar to fish doesn't disqualify us from being in the same vertebrate group as fish. Every species is going to have derived features. That does not make the transitional features go away.

It is significant that the “earliest” true tetrapods recognized by evolutionists (such as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega) have all of the distinguishing features of tetrapod limbs (and their attachment girdles) and were clearly capable of walking and breathing on land. The structural differences between the tetrapod leg and the fish fin is easily understood when we realize that the buoyant density of water is about a thousand times greater than that of air. A fish has no need to support much of its weight in water where it is essentially weightless.

The fins of fish (including Tiktaalik)

Essentially all fish (including Tiktaalik) have small pelvic fins relative to their pectoral fins. The legs of tetrapods are just the opposite: the hind limbs attached to the pelvic girdle are almost always more robust than the fore limbs attached to the pectoral girdle. (This is particularly obvious in animals such as kangaroos and theropod dinosaurs.) Not only are the pelvic fins of all fish small, but they’re not even attached to the axial skeleton (vertebral column) and thus can’t bear weight on land.

A fossil does not need to be identical to tetrapods in order to be a transitional between fish and tetrapods.

Even the smaller endochondral bones in the distal fin of Tiktaalik are not related to digits. Ahlberg and Clack point out that “although these small distal bones bear some resemblance to tetrapod digits in terms of their function and range of movement, they are still very much components of a fin. There remains a large morphological gap between them and digits as seen in, for example Acanthostega: if the digits evolved from these distal bones, the process must have involved considerable developmental rearranging.”

Nothing here discounts these bones from being the evolutionary precursors of digits, nor does it put the transitional nature of Tiktaalik in doubt. A transitional does not need to be identical to tetrapods in order to be a transitional. If it was identical to tetrapods, then you would argue that it is a tetrapod and could not be transitional.

This is the type of silliness that you get from a lawyer. Smoke and mirrors. Luskin tries to fool his audience by trying to convince them that a transitional would need to be identical to tetrapods in order to be transitional. Do you realize how stupid that is?

above section from:

https://answersingenesis.org/extinct-animals/tiktaalik-and-the-fishy-story-of-walking-fish-part-2/

[/quote]

Yes, from a lying creationist website. The lie this time is that a tetrapod transitional has to be identical to tetrapods in order to be transitional.

 

[CabVet]

and more importantly AIG link below

Which is a complete lie.

 

[createdtoworship]

I got mixed up on a chart on a site and posted a 4004 b.c. date.

4359 is the date of the flood. So as you can see, one or two trees postdate the flood, but most of them predate the flood as can be expected. But again some of the bristlestone pines have more than one ring in a year:

Evidence for multiple ring growth per year in Bristlecone Pines - creation.com

 

[dad]

The above denial of science having evidence or proof of where life comes from was written by a human who shares a couple hundred thousand retroviral insert fragments with chimpanzees and gorillas, evidence and proof of sharing a common ancestor with them according to the flesh.

Your interpretation of why we share stuff is of limited import actually. One thing is certain your theories did not create life did they? Let's see it! You talk about godless beliefs. Whooppee do.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I got mixed up on a chart on a site and posted a 4004 b.c. date.

4359 is the date of the flood.

4359 B.C.? You do realize that makes the Flood predate the creation, right?