500+ Renowned Scientists Jointly Share Why They Reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

And the monkey came from a fish 10 trillion years ago

The oldest civilization is only around 10k years old actually. At max, its probably less, not taking into account possible calculating errors etc

Take a guess where it started

Thank you for your response. I was responding to a post saying that "we see new species developing all the time."

Again, we see variation developing, but we do not see "NEW SPECIES DEVELOPING." Do we?

Both sides take a leap of faith at some point. It can be argued which side has to take more of a leap, I guess.. Is that what's going on here or do people actually think they "know"?

Key to life is not being too strong in your convictions, stuck in your inevitably flawed truths.

Our perceptions are so limited; logic so boxed in. Trying to find examples of "new species developing" from a process that is supposed to occur over millenia is just futile. Especially when we cannot precisely define/understand what a "species" even is. There are always exceptions in nature.

Technically, one could say that through man's breeding and domestication of various plant and animal species we have observed a sped-up version evolution. A dog for example, is now a distinct species from a wolf which it was originally bred from. Off the top of my head, I do not have any examples occurring "in nature." Unless you turn to the fossil record, but to make absolute conclusions from this is problematic. So its up to you what you will accept as evidence or not.

The biogenesis vs abiogenesis thing is really a non-starter, a semantic mish-mash. New discoveries may cause this discussion to change but at the moment, with the perspectives involved, it is at an impasse.

Also if the “laws of physics” are universal and can never change, then the Big Bang and Intelligent Design are both equally likely(or unlikely) as both scenarios defy these laws.

Last Edited by mushufasa11 on 08/09/2018 07:21 PM

Science isn't about faith. It's about creating predictive models that explain the observed facts and give us applications.

When it comes to animals and plants, a species when used by biologists means a population capable of breeding and producing viable offspring. Speciation -the process where one species branches into two- has been observed both in nature and in laboratory settings.

The Big Bang is a scientific theory, it does not violate the laws of physics. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. It can't be tested and it doesn't make any predictions.

Whether we can really trust what we are seeing in our observations and whether our brains are capable of forming absolute conclusions from a data set is where the faith in science comes in.

I am a plant biologist. I am aware that there is a scientific definition of the word "species" but as I mentioned, there are always exceptions and the definition becomes more grey than at face-value. Many different plant species are able to form viable hybrids due to chromosome doubling. Plants do a lot of weird things and the genetics can get very complex. Also where does the established definition of a species leave organisms that reproduce mainly a-sexually (like many plants and bacteria do). This type of discussion can go on and on. Humans are very reductionist in their thinking, trying to jam things into categories that are more open than we'd like to think.

The Big Bang itself does not defy the laws of physics, but what caused the Bing Bang does and that's what the Creationist posters are arguing.

Scientific theories are based on observational data. What is this observational data which supports the big bang?

How does the big bang NOT violate the first law of thermodynamics?

The big bang violates the first law of thermodyanmics. Conservation of matter and energy.

1. The BBT doesn't state that the Universe came from nothing.
2. The Laws of Thermodynamics apply inside the Universe.

Unlike religion, in science we don't have faith that our conclusions are absolutely true. If we did, our conclusions would never change. In science we doubt our conclusions. We test them. We actively try to disprove them and then build probable explanations based on the evidence.

A scientific theory has applications, regardless if it is absolutely true or not. Like Newtonian mechanics, they may not be correct beyond a certain scope, but they are still useful.



There's no point splitting hairs. The kind of speciation that is required for evolution theory has been observed.



How do you know it does?

I have a post earlier in the thread that is in agreement with this. That is an all well and good approach to life, but you've just admitted that through science we cannot know absolute truth. That is the only point I was trying to make.

In my day-to-day life, I believe in evolution. But I think it is much more complex than what we currently know and some of the implications man makes from evolution are where the real problems lie.


I don't doubt this. I even tried to give examples. Most scientists point to the fossil record for the easiest way to observe speciation. I said that I didn't have any examples occurring in nature during my lifetime simply because I didn't know any, not that I don't think there are any. Perhaps I misunderstood exactly what the poster Harry The Dog was asking, or he had a different idea of what a "species" is.

Splitting hairs over the definition of "species" was to show that we cannot fully classify reality/nature. Perhaps accessing higher states of consciousness one can obtain higher truths but these cannot be expressed simply in language.



I don't know for sure. I made an absolute statement for practicality sake of the conversation. I assumed that something coming from nothing or however it started probably violates a law of physics. If not it at least violates some laws of logic, as its been a philosophical debate for some time now. I would be interested to hear your idea of how the Big Bang started or at least what the mainstream theory is now.

Last Edited by mushufasa11 on 08/10/2018 12:59 PM

Speciation is genetic, they can still look the same physically. They have already seen populations evolve a lot like the italian wall lizard experiment where they evolved a new organ and became stronger only within 30 years. It's already a fact that speciation happens when they tried it with fruit flies.

[link to www.sciencedaily.com (secure)]


speciation
[link to www.sciencedaily.com (secure)]
[link to evolution.berkeley.edu (secure)]

Also evolution is not a debate. They don't all go out looking for speciation. It really is not that interesting to them unless they evolved a lot physically. 99.9% of relevant scientists accept evolution already.

When I was indoctrinated in science classes in public school, I 'learned' that a tiny mass exploded into the known universe.

Where did this mass come from? Therefore I use the word 'religion', because it requires incredibly strong faith to believe in it.

Either your teacher got it wrong, or you remember it wrong.
Not as if American anti-intellectuals like you haven't been undermining education for decades.


In science it is perfectly fine to say "We don't know yet."


The notion that once upon a time the Universe was tiny and extremely hot and dense is the best-fit explanation for the observational data.
You failing to understand this are just arguments from ignorance and incredulity, IOW completely irrelevant.
Someone who doesn't have the tiniest clue about cosmology does not get to tell cosmologists that they are doing it wrong.

If you don't know, tell your evolutionist buddies to keep their religion out of our public school science books. I do not remember incorrectly, books were scanned and can be cited today. Prentice Hall is one of the obvious culprits.

You have yet to prove that any schoolbook claims the universe came from nothing.


Than you should have no problem providing a citation.

Evolution is change of allele frequencies in a gene pool over time. The theory explains how this happens, the processes of evolution. Mutation, Gene Flow, Natural Selection, Genetic Drift. Evolution and its processes are observed and reproducible.

The tiny mass or singularity which evolutionists claim magically turned into the universe, supposedly came from...what?

I will post the screenshots as soon as you admit this is not science, and does not belong in the public school science books.

It is a religion and should be taught in privately funded schools, like how creation is being taught.

When you claim the genetic information came from non-genetic information, that is where your science becomes religion.

A creator outside of our material spacetime dimension is actually required scientifically. We know this as we know the universe is finite...if it were infinite there would be no energy left, the universe would be completely devoid of energy and be totally dead, ie heat death. What we observe instead is a universe running down, towards an end, from the beginning.

So what was before time and space? That is where the creator exists. Humanistic materialists would actually be fine with that if you take away the moral component, that there is a God who tells us right from wrong.

It is actually kind of hilarious. Atheistic materialists can be told that...DNA is a language system and language requires an intelligence to exist...they ignore it. They look at the ability of living things to adapt to certain conditions, and rather than admitting that adaptation is light years away from "evolution", they say, well, we all started from a single cell that was produced by an accidental collection of atoms, totally ignoring that it is mathematically impossible for it to happen. They simply ignore the fact that there is no evidence in the fossils that show any kind of animal has ever turned into any other kind. They ignore the soft tissue found in dinosaur bones. They ignore the fact that fossils are dated by the layer of rock they are in, and...the rock is dated by the fossils in them!

Quantum physics has proven that time is an illusion, that there are other dimensions, and that almost certainly, we are living in some sort of simulated reality...or as the Bible says, we see through a glass darkly. We don't see the true reality.

It doesn't matter what they are shown, they will hold to it as it is their religion and their security blanket against God.

I wonder sometimes, when the Bible talks about a grand delusion in the end times that even might deceive the elect, if that isn't pointing to evolution. Because the blindness of those who believe it is complete and total.

The "Cosmic Egg" was the Universe, and it wasn't a "tiny mass," it contained all the matter/energy that ever was or will be.
We do not have enough data to determine what happened before.

If you knew anything about cosmology you wouldn't need to ask such questions.
As always the opinion of ignorami is irrelevant and useless.


Maybe you should explain to us what you think science is, so we know that you know what you are talking about.


Maybe you should also explain what you think religion is, you seem to be very confused about the matter.

Scientists accept adaptation and then extrapolate from there. Speciation, in terms of seeing any animal change into another kind of animal, has never been observed at all, and is refuted by fossil evidence.

We find lizards with all kinds of adaptations in the fossil bed. We find monkey and apes, possums and horses, cats and dogs. What we son't find is links in a chain of a cat adapting itself eventualy into say, a cow, or a pony.

We don't find any evidence, in fact, that points to anything other than the fact that cats...have always been cats. That got bigger, and smaller, and adapted to grow stronger, or to withstand more or less heat.

Evolution is a religion in that regardless of these facts, people say that somehow evolution has been observed. No, adaptation has been observed within the kind of animals we see.

A lizard is a lizard, whether that species adapts to environmental changes or not.

Speciation occurs when one interfertile population diverges into two populations that are no longer capable of breeding with each other. This has been observed. 'Kind' has no meaning in biology. You might say there are different kinds of lizards, or you might say that all lizards (from geckos to Komodo Dragons) are the same 'kind.'

I'm guessing you wouldn't say that chimps and humans are the same kind, despite the fact that geckos and komodo Dragons are more different (genetically and anatomically) from each other than chimps are from humans.

The fossil record doesn't refute evolution at all, it supports it.



No scientist on the planet thinks that cats evolved into ponies. How familiar are you with taxonomy? You probably know that cats are mammals, yes? Mammal is a taxonomic class. Cats belong to the order Carnivora, along with Dogs, bears and racoons. What current evolution theory suggests is that animals that share taxonomic ranks are more closely related to each other than they are to animals outside those ranks. ie, all mammals are more related to each other than they are to reptiles. By extension, all mammals in the order Carnivora are more closely related to each other than they are to mammals outside the order Carnivora.

What this suggests (assuming common ancestry) is that in the past, there was one kind of mammal that was the common ancestor of all mammals. From here, one variety of mammal appeared that was the common ancestor of all Carnivorans, and this variety gradually diverged into the different species within the order Carnivora. And this is exactly what the fossil record shows us.

The earliest Carnivorans appear about 55 million years ago, they are small 'ferret-like' arboreal animals with hands. From here, we see carnivorans gradually diverge to become more and more similar to cats, dogs and bears. We see animals with the traits of both canine and feline appear before those groups diverge, and then we see dog-bears appearing before the separate dog and bear categories emerge. You should look this up, it's fascinating.



A cat is a cat by definition. This is basic logic. But as I already explained, the fossil record shows animals appearing in a sequence that is consistent with evolution theory. Here's a basic rundown:
The first vertebrates in the fossil record are fish, then we see tetrapods appear, which are a type of vertebrate with 4 limbs. Then we see amphibians appear, which are a type of tetrapod. Then we see amphibians diverge from reptiles, then we see some reptiles that gradually become more mammal-like, followed by full fleged mammals. Then we see mammals diverge into different types, among them are primates and the first Carnivorans, then we see Carnivorans diverge into cats, dogs and bears. There has NEVER been a fossil found outside of this sequence. We never find tigers older than dinosaurs and we never find mammals older than the first reptiles.



Evolution is not a religion, it's a very complex scientific theory that involves many different fields of study. If you want to learn about Evolution theory, I suggest you stop listening to Creationists, who have a vested interest in lying about evolution in order to preserve their religion.

You cannot make your own definition of speciation and then say it hasn't been observed. Speciation already has its own definition.


Evolution is "change" so "adaptation" is evolution.

You are thinking species are distinct, separate, to other species, there is no evidence for this. There is only evidence for the opposite. Mutations create alleles, alleles change species. Its literally impossible for evolution to not be true when we know alleles exist.

"Lizard" isn't a species. Its a generic term, species is a scientific term, there are many species of "Lizards". The further back you go in the fossil record the less Lizard-like the fossils get. Same with Mammals, Mammals evolved from Synapsids which were Mammal-like but not actually Mammals, they had Mammal traits and Reptile traits. Synapsids and Ancient Reptiles shared a common ancestor. Its not a cat evolving into a chicken.

I never accepted that man made theory nonsense. Creationism has always made more sense. People just can't or don't want to accept it. They can't handle the Truth. The Truth is Glorious

If you knew anything about the laws of physics and thermodynamics, you would not type such nonsense.

Only a disinfo victim would say that.

Of course you lack the education and intelligence to recognize disinfo.

Don't pretend you're an authority on physics or thermodynamics. You're not. Actual physicists disagree with you. You're parroting pseudo-scientific nonsense you picked up from Creationist con-men.

The Bible is man made. Saying 'god did it' is simpler than actually unraveling the complex natural processes that govern our reality. You don't want complicated answers, so you dismiss people as just 'unwilling' to see the truth. This is the lie you tell yourself so that you don't have to question your own beliefs.

Last Edited by Spur-Man on 08/20/2018 10:30 AM

Just so everyone else understands,

Nothing cannot create everything. Your big bang idea is a religion, not science. Call it what it is, then we can agree to disagree.

First Law of Thermodynamics