DARWIN'S MACROEVOLUTION: Why Unscientific?

OOPS!!!!!

http://voices.yahoo.com/what-evolutionists-wont-tell-evolution-paleontologists-5833518.html?cat=4

So, since they do, just like I have been telling you for years... What now...? Deny it of course... Nothing on this planet will shake your Faith in your religion... Because that is what it is - I hope at least 'part' of your eyes are opening!!

Just enough to let some (en) light in (ment).

 

Each planet creates whatever is on it. Earth created life forms. Other planets don't seem to be that interested in creating life forms.

 

Sorry, you'll have to quote the part in there where a scientist says "the earth and everything popped up out of nowhere." I'm not seeing it.

 

I think your definition of "create" is very different from mine. If two magnets attract each other and come together, did they just create a larger magnet?

 

Yes, they did.

 

Then I suggest you read it again. It says both. Burz, it's Monday morning and I am sluggish, I don’t feel like going through that again and finding out where it states that, but it does. That is what the whole dang article is about for Pete’s Sake! Please do not tell me your blinders are that think that your mind basically “skipped” over that… What do you think the article was about anyway?

 

Do you mean the part about matter coming into existence? That's a real phenomenon that we can reproduce in a lab. High power x-rays produce subatomic particles. That's not the same as saying "the earth and everything popped up out of nowhere." That's saying energy produced matter, which coalesced into what we see today in accordance with the physical laws of our universe.

 

Yesterday was Monday, today is Tuesday and lunchtime. If you think I am going to let you get away with that post and not answering my question then you shouldn’t have posted to begin with.

You know what the article is about and that is why you didn’t answer my question concerning it. So, how about this… Since I like you. Riddle the readers this.

WHAT ARE THE TWO MAIN TOPICS IN THE ARTICLE?!?!

After you do that, GIVE A SHORT DESCRIPTION ON WHAT THEY WERE SAYING ABOUT THOSE TOPICS?!?!


There you go – now don’t let me down there Burz!!! Be honest…. I know you read it, I know you have realized you messed up, now I won’t rub your face in the “mess up” as long as you take back what you stated and post what the article was about… It’s that easy…

Man up, you’ve done it before (once&#8230.

 

What are you off about, and what does it have to do with my comment in this thread? To rehash: I said that scientists do not claim that "the earth and everything popped up out of nowhere." You posted an article seemingly to refute that, but the article doesn't say that. When I asked you to quote the part you're talking about, you wouldn't (couldn't?). So maybe you'd like to start again? Maybe you posted the wrong article?

 

You're choosing not to think, as if I'm surprised at that.

I never said the Earth "popped up out of nowhere," but I did say that it formed naturally, i.e. without a human-like "intelligence" causing it to form, and ditto for the life upon it. It happens all the time in the universe, at least the formation of stars and planets. It's a process that is actually quite well understood by scientists today. Life, being a complex arrangement of organic molecules, is a bit harder to comprehend than the formation of stellar bodies as a whole, but there is no reason to think that the formation process of life is any less natural than that for stellar bodies. It all happens because of physics, because of the properties of the matter involved and of the universe all around them.

 

Earth clearly had conditions favorable to life (as we know it) forming. Earth also happens to be the only planet in the solar system to date that is known to feature liquid water on its surface. Coincidence?

 

Don't you think that it's possible for life to exist without liquid water? Planets could produce their own unique lifeforms.

 

Earth life is very dependent on water to function. I don't know whether it's possible for life to function otherwise..

 

I know Burz… Let’s start from the SECOND SENTENCE IN THE ARTICLE SHALL WE… Then we can move on from there and I’ll just cut and past, I don’t know – one sentence out of each paragraph then – I’ll go ahead and post like WHOLE paragraphs for you… I mean – since it doesn’t say what I stated it says right? Since you didn’t read it and now I have to embarrass you yet again because your too stubborn…

No worries… I gave you a fair chance – but you decided to get embarrassed yet again…

And it is the business of science to move forward and continually modify or eliminate particular scientific theories or axioms that have been either conclusively proven true or false. Evolution cannot pass the Scientific Method, which uses empirical evidence to conclusively prove or test a theory to establish it as fact or to have it become a scientific law…. What prevents the theory of evolution from ever becoming an established fact or law is that it can not pass the Scientific Method…. The lack of fossil evidence has been the paleontologists trade secret. What was envisaged by Charles Darwin, was a process that would begin with simple marine organisms living in ancient seas, progressing through fishes, to amphibian which living partly in the sea and partly on land and then on to reptiles, mammals, and eventually the primates, including humans. Herein lies the problem; there is no fossil evidence of this process at all, anywhere….. Niles Eldredge, who was also the adjunct professor at the City University of New York, is a vigorous supporter of evolution. Dr. Eldredge openly admits that the traditional evolutionary view is not supported by the fossil record. He say, "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long," as he writes, "It seems never to happen. Fastidious collecting of fossils, from the bottom upward, up sheer cliff faces, zigzags, minor oscillations...all showing the same results. That life forms all appear, fully formed, complete in body parts, at their first discovery".2

Did you miss that?... You missed all that did you? How about this – did you skip over this paragraph?

Since the facts do not prove evolution, since the fossil record does not show any transition from one species to another, since "scientific" dating methods have been proven unreliable, it is no surprise that A. Lunn summed it up saying, "Faith is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links unseen."3 Evolution is no omniscient scientist axiomatic truth. It remains both empirically and evidentially, inconclusively proven.

Did you get that one? Did you? Did you skip all that also?

Now let’s move on to the universe shall we… Let us read the whole paragraph after the topic of life PRESTO CHANGO’ing into the fossil record…

There is more than ample evidence to support the conclusion that the spontaneous generation of life from nonliving matter is not possible. "One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task," Professor George Wald of Harvard University acknowledges, "to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible." But what does this proponent of evolution actually believe? He answers: "Yet here we are - as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."4 Does that sound like objective, rational science? It sounds like it requires a great deal of faith.


And how about I just go ahead and put the rest in italics so you can say what it “doesn’t” say… How about that… Starting from the next paragraph:

Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, once said at the moment of this explosion, "the universe was about a hundred thousands million degrees Centigrade...and the universe was filled with light."5 The universe has not always existed. It had a start...what caused that? Scientists have no explanation for the sudden explosion of light and matter. They can only postulate a theory.
There is general consensus in the scientific community that matter did not exist 14 billion years ago. We have evidence from the background radiation and other tests, for example, that the sky is dark at night, that at that time there was said to be a "Big Bang." Prior to that, there was no matter. It seems ironic that the term "big bang" came from Hoyle who maintained till his death that we had a steady state universe, even though no scientist accepts the eternal state of matter, today. So the belief that matter is eternal must come from some outdated concepts. Knowing this, the new Biology textbooks state that "The General Theory of Evolution (macroevolution) states that matter is eternal" while general scientific consensus is that it isn't.1
Entropy is an example of energy being used up and then running out. It is defined as "when a system's energy is defined as the sum of its 'useful' energy (energy that can be used, for example, to push a piston), and its "useless energy" (that energy which cannot be used to do external work), then entropy may be visualized as the 'stray' or 'lost' energy whose magnitude over the total energy of a system is directly proportional to the absolute temperature of the system and is a measure of the disorder of a system.6
Belief in a theory is theology, not science. It is faith-based. . Science works by observing phenomena, creating a hypothesis, and testing that hypothesis. If the test fails, a new hypothesis is constructed. It is time to speak openly and honesty about this theory. A theory that by scientific definitions and standards, can never be proven conclusively.
If you read any dictionary's definition of the word "theory", you will likely not find more subjective terms and descriptions given to describe a single word in the entire dictionary. Notice all of the subjective terms that Webster uses to define the word theory: General principle "drawn from" any body of facts; is "plausible" or scientifically "acceptable"; "general principle" offered to explain observed facts; "hypotheses"; "guess"; "abstract thought" [my favorite].7 These are very effervescent and ambiguous terms, unlike law, axiom or scientific fact. It is not a know-so fact, it is a hope-so theory.
Evolution's best definition: "Faith is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links unseen."3

Now… Now Burz you can tell us what the article was about… What were the two main subjects? It’s a new game I play outside of MOST RETARDED POST OF THE DAY! Called SHOW US YOUR GENIUS!!! Here is how it works Burz, I ask a question and you have a chance to show us how genius you are! Are you ready? Here we go!

What was the two subjects of the article within that website:

They were:
Chickens and Ice Cream.

Squirrel turds and Polygrip denture cream

Dog farts and smegma

Evolution not passing the scientific method due to fossils “popping up out of nowhere” and how the Big Bang is also ridiculous

OR

How Count Chocula and Boo Berry Ghost broke in and raped the M & M guys in their own home…

You choose!!! SHOW US YOUR GENIUS!!!

 

yes and yes

but no they do not follow qm

remember epr

 

None of that has anything to do with my original post that you quoted. Where, in any of that, is there a scientist saying that "the earth and everything popped up out of nowhere?" If you think that's what the Big Bang theory says, then you need to go crack a book. The part you bolded is just talking about the evidence at hand. Scientists aren't saying that organisms popped up fully formed. The bolded part indicates that there aren't fossils of incomplete body parts on organisms, making it seem that way. I'm not going to get into whether the bit about fossil evidence is even true or not. The point is that scientists do not claim that "the earth and everything popped up out of nowhere," as A2E seems to think. And you haven't provided any evidence that would refute that.

Make up whatever games you want. I'm not playing. I'm responding with relevant comments to people that I'm quoting. You should try it some time.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- PROF SARCASTIC:
The above is part of what you wrote at Post 123 on page 13 of this thread. My next post to you will also be quoting from Post 123. Below is the weblink in case you want to go back and check what you said.

http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/246629-darwins-macroevolution-why-unscientific-13.html


Now, let me ask you this: In the portion from your above quotation that I bolded in blue, you said the current theory is consistent with "all the facts known." What facts are you referring to? Take your pick from the list below.

1. The fact that Louis Pasteur and others proved by experiments that life cannot come from non-life?

2. The fact that pro-evolution paleontologists admit there's no evidence of macroevolution in the fossils record, while they lyingly refer to variation of species as evidence of "micro" evolution?

3. The fact that the fabricated term "punctuated equilibrium" was dreamed up by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould--when they could not find evidence in the fossils to support slow species transition from one creature to the next?

 

Louis Pasteur and others proved by experiments that life cannot come from non-life by the limited number of experiments that they conducted. That does not mean that life can't come from non-life. Remember, it took Edison a reported 10,000 attempts before he created the light bulb. If he had stopped after 7,500 attempts would you have said that it's impossible to create a light bulb?

We now know that bacteria can create pure gold. But we didn't know that in 2011. http://us.gizmodo.com/5948739/researchers-discover-bacteria-that-can-produce-pure-gold

 

Only from the list below? Are you trying to imply that only three facts are known? How bizarre.

As that's already been dealt with by someone else, I'll just say that this "fact" is untrue.

What's your source or evidence for this "fact"?

And even if it's true, why would it matter even the tiniest little bit? Around 2 million years ago, it seems frogs did not exist. Now, they exist. Either they came into being by a supernatural process, or by a natural process. Since no supernatural process has ever been scientifically observed, at any time, ever, it is sensible to assume that a natural process was at work.

Every term gets "dreamed up" by someone, words don't usually just spontaneously appear by themselves. Punctuated equilibrium may or may not turn out to be the way evolution works. Personally I'm sure it will be wrong to some degree - almost everything in science turns out to have more to it when inspected closely enough. Darwin got details wrong - I have no doubt Gould got details wrong too. That in no way disproves evolution however.

By the way, since you mention that old post #123... did you ever get around to telling us what volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica has the blatant mistake in it where it claims that evolution is about how life began?

 

ALTER2EGO -to- PROF SARCASTIC:
I notice that you conveniently evaded my questions and then proceeded to tell me your personal philosophy about frogs, about the fabricated term "punctuated equilibrium" for which there is no evidence, and about Darwin's equally unproven theory--while you insist the lack of evidence "in no way disproves evolution."

You are giving a perfect demonstration of blind faith: believing in something for which there is no evidence. I come across this frequently from atheists who have no problem accusing Christians of having blind faith in a God they cannot prove. Never mind that the precision in the natural world provides ample proof that an Intelligent Designer aka Jehovah intervened and guided the outcome. At least Christians have evidence of intelligent design. Evolution theory cannot produce a shred of evidence from the fossils record.

 

Do you deny that evolution happens?

 

Nothiing intelligent about ID for christians. There is no ID in christianity. It would mean that christianity had evolved.

 

I saw no philosophy. I saw a comment about when frogs first appeared in the fossil record.

This phrase was created for the purpose of describing a large body of evidence.

No scientific theory is subject to proof, only to support. The evidential support for evolution has long since been regarded as beyond serious challenge, and in fact no biological advance in knowledge for nearly the last century would have been even possible without the theory of evolution to guide the research.

And all this non-evidence has been accumulated by well over a century during which tens of thousands of scientists have dedicated their lives to increasing it! It now fills huge libraries, it fills dozens of current scientific journals. There is more evidence for evolution than there is for gravity.

There is no evidence for intelligent design whatsoever. Scientists have been demanding some for decades. The Templeton Foundation has offered to fund any research program that can produce a TESTABLE hypothesis that might produce some such evidence. There have been no takers. ID has no researchers, no labs, no research budget, no hypotheses, no theories, and no evidence.

While the fossil record shouts evolution loudly with every discovery, in fact the theory of evolution would have FAR more than enough evidence and coherency to be regarded by science as thoroughly settled even if no fossil had ever formed. Fossils support the theory of evolution the way trucks support the theory of transportation.

I feel like we've been transported back in time 300 years and back in intelligence to before the frog!

 

Why does this thread still exist? Alter2Ego is ignorant, proud of it, and insists on staying ignorant, regardless of how much butter she is taught by those around her. Just let her enjoy not knowing anything about evolution. At a certain point, you have to just give up and admit, "I will never be able to communicate with this person". Or, alternatively, "Maybe a shouting match with someone crazier than the local hobo is not the best use of my time".

 

As far as I'm concerned, (this being the religion and philosphy room), she's just illustrating that while religion might serve some good purpose, in the wrong hands it is debilitating, reducing an otherwise sentient individual to the level we see here. A cautionary tale.