Problems With Evolution

[herme3]

it's been done and the bible has been shown to say absudly stupid things about the universe. even AiG admitted that.

 

Can you give me some examples? I'm already talking to my preacher and some other Christians about how Genesis said light was created before the Sun, Moon or stars. They are trying to find an answer to that. Do you have any other examples?

[ydoaPs]

try this article from AiG. skip all the fallacy and go to the chart.

 

also, there are several places that suggest the sun revolves around the earth.....

 

like when the sun stood still....do you understand how much damage would ensue if the earth suddenly stopped? it would be the worst natural disaster ever....and there is NO evidence that it happened.....not even in the story....

And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. [is'] not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

let's ignore the part where it says the sun goes around the earth.

big problems:

 

conservation of momentum

 

moon crashing into earth

 

 

 

edit: i could have sworn the chart had shown how the evil evolutionists say plants came after the sun.

[Klaynos]

God can never really be disproved because an all powerfull entity could just hide itself from our perception...

 

Saying you'll belive in something untill it's disproved, doesn't really work with religion because of the above.

 

People would continue to belive even if it was disproved, as people would just say "it's a conspiricy!!!" Probably not all of them, but some...

 

sunspot, seriousely that sounds alot like ID.

 

Read: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1aRandom.shtml

[herme3]

Well, http://www.answersingenesis.org is an interesting web site. When you mix their ideas with the ideas of http://www.christiananswers.com you end up with a confusing mess. Perhaps these sites should get their scientific evidence together before writing some of the stuff that they do. I can now see why some people in this forum might have a negative view of creationists.

 

Of course, I can say the same thing about some of the evolutionist, abiogenesis, and big bang web sites I looked at. They are always contradicting each other, and also leaving out major holes that exist in the theories. For example, nobody has been able to explain to me how the big bang could happen if you consider how much gravity the universe would have if it was compressed. Light can't escape from a black hole, so how can you expect matter to escape from the entire universe if it was compressed? It just doesn't make sense...

 

Perhaps how we got here is something that we will never explain. Despite what many people say, we don't even seem to be close to finding the true answer. I believe the truth is hidden deep in the words of Genesis. Perhaps you believe the truth is hidden deep in the night sky, at the point where the distant light might possibly show its true origins. Or maybe humans just aren't supposed to know. Maybe we are just supposed to appreciate the fact that we are here...

[ydoaPs]

Well, http://www.answersingenesis.org[/url'] is an interesting web site.

that's one way to look at it.

 

When you mix their ideas with the ideas of http://www.christiananswers.com you end up with a confusing mess.

each are a mess on their own

 

Perhaps these sites should get their scientific evidence together before writing some of the stuff that they do.

evidence? i've yet to see any valid evidence from either site

 

 

Of course, I can say the same thing about some of the evolutionist, abiogenesis, and big bang web sites I looked at.

try looking at reputable sites. geocities itsn't a good example.

 

I believe the truth is hidden deep in the words of Genesis.

didn't you even look at that cool chart i gave a link to? genesis directly goes against OBSERVABLE phenomina

[herme3]

evidence? i've yet to see any valid evidence from either site

 

Well, they seem to take scientific evidence and then twist it around. That's what makes it so confusing.

 

try looking at reputable sites. geocities itsn't a good example.

 

I looked at various sites that appear to be major science web sites. Many of them seem to disagree on different things, especially with the big bang. Some say that an actual explosion took place, and others say that there was no explosion but just a rapid expansion. Also, I still don't understand how the big bang could happen. I always thought that nothing could exceed the speed of light. If light can't escape from a black hole, how can anything escape from the universe if it was compressed?

 

Yes, the spaces between matter seem to be growing. However, that alone does not seem to be proof that an actual explosion or expansion took place. Given how small our knowledge of matter is, wouldn't it just make as much sense to say that actual particles of matter are shrinking? I know this is a little off-topic, but it just shows that science has yet to find a perfect explanation of the origin of the universe.

 

 

didn't you even look at that cool chart i gave a link to? genesis directly goes against OBSERVABLE phenomina

 

Yes, I did look at the chart. Which of those are currently observable? All of it seems like ancient history to me. How can we observe anything that happened such a long time ago?

[ydoaPs]

"how can we observe anthing that happened such a long time ago?"

 

a telescope

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I looked at various sites that appear to be major science web sites. Many of them seem to disagree on different things, especially with the big bang. Some say that an actual explosion took place, and others say that there was no explosion but just a rapid expansion. Also, I still don't understand how the big bang could happen. I always thought that nothing could exceed the speed of light. If light can't escape from a black hole, how can anything escape from the universe if it was compressed?

It was a rapid expansion of space itself. That means the particles in it were not necessarily moving - the entire universe was.

 

Yes, the spaces between matter seem to be growing. However, that alone does not seem to be proof that an actual explosion or expansion took place. Given how small our knowledge of matter is, wouldn't it just make as much sense to say that actual particles of matter are shrinking? I know this is a little off-topic, but it just shows that science has yet to find a perfect explanation of the origin of the universe.

Then you'd have to explain how particles of matter can shrink.

 

Yes, I did look at the chart. Which of those are currently observable? All of it seems like ancient history to me. How can we observe anything that happened such a long time ago?

Yes, a telescope or nice little calculations.

[herme3]

It was a rapid expansion of space itself. That means the particles in it were not necessarily moving - [i']the entire universe was.[/i]

 

How could space itself expand? Isn't space just the absence of matter, like darkness is the absence of light? The only way I can picture space being compressed is if matter itself was smaller, or if the matter was closer together. If the matter was closer together, wouldn't you still have the problem with an extremely large amount of gravity?

 

Yes, a telescope or nice little calculations.

 

What should I be looking for in the telescope? Everything in that chart either took place on Earth, or in the solar system. How could we see back in history if the events happened so close to Earth?

[ydoaPs]

herme3, there is more than one solar system

[silkworm]

The problem is that many scientists are not willing to accept that the existence of God is possible.

 

You seem like you're intelligent, so I don't know why I have to repeat myself so much. Natural science does not consider the existence of God because it can not control for God. About all the other comments you make about most scienctists, many scientists, you must understand that science holds no position on the existence of God. Every scientist's faith, or lack there of, is his/her own. Science has no religion, science is just science. Individual scientists each have their own faith or lack of faith. Do you understand the difference? Just because Richard Dawkins is an atheist doesn't mean that all scientists are atheists. That argument is a sad one.

 

Actually, I already knew that. However, Charles Darwin is usually thought of as the creator of some of the modern evolution beliefs. Many of the modern parts of the theory came from his book, "The Origin of Species".

 

It's strange you'd make that sort of statement since you already knew that. For the rest of it, really? How so?

 

While there are some good points made in this part of the letter, it seems to be a little off-topic. This part of the video was their interpretation of The Bible.

 

Judging by the content of the rest of the video, the problem isn't with the Bible. It's with the fact that the producer's of this video do not know, or are misleading about what atomic fission, etc, is. Defining atomic fission as "melting of elements" is incredibly incorrect and needs to be addressed. It's not the Bible's fault it was misapplied by people who either do not know what they're talking about or are conciously misrepresenting science.

[herme3]

herme3, there is more than one solar system

 

How can that be observed with a telescope? Most telescopes can't see a clear view of anything that is outside of our solar system. We don't even have a clear picture of Pluto yet.

 

You seem like you're intelligent, so I don't know why I have to repeat myself so much. Natural science does not consider the existence of God because it can not control for God. About all the other comments you make about most scienctists, many scientists, you must understand that science holds no position on the existence of God. Every scientist's faith, or lack there of, is his/her own. Science has no religion, science is just science. Individual scientists each have their own faith or lack of faith. Do you understand the difference? Just because Richard Dawkins is an atheist doesn't mean that all scientists are atheists. That argument is a sad one.

 

I never meant that all scientists practice a particular religion. I only meant that most scientists don't use science to study a religion. A religion is basically just a belief about how the world was created, and how it works. Science is just the study of how the world was created, and how it works. Therefore, I don't understand why science can't be used to study religion. While science may not be able to prove the existence of God, it can look at other parts of the religion.

 

Let's pretend that there is a religion that starts out similar to Christian beliefs. Just imagine that the religious text starts out by saying a divine being created the Earth. Then it continued to say that the divine being created all the life on Earth. So far, science probably can't prove anything supporting or opposing this religion. However, later in the religious text it says that this divine being created giant space aliens on the moon. This is where science would be able to prove the religion is not true.

[ecoli]

How can that be observed with a telescope? Most telescopes can't see a clear view of anything that is outside of our solar system. We don't even have a clear picture of Pluto yet.

 

well, you don't have to see something directly to know that it's there. We can measure variations in the diameters of stars to measure very precisely the size of the planets orbiting them. But, if you don't like that method, just wait until 2016, and it'll be proven to you: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2004/telescope.html

 

 

I never meant that all scientists practice a particular religion. I only meant that most scientists don't use science to study a religion. A religion is basically just a belief about how the world was created, and how it works. Science is just the study of how the world was created, and how it works. Therefore, I don't understand why science can't be used to study religion. While science may not be able to prove the existence of God, it can look at other parts of the religion.

 

 

Let's pretend that there is a religion that starts out similar to Christian beliefs. Just imagine that the religious text starts out by saying a divine being created the Earth. Then it continued to say that the divine being created all the life on Earth. So far, science probably can't prove anything supporting or opposing this religion. However, later in the religious text it says that this divine being created giant space aliens on the moon. This is where science would be able to prove the religion is not true.

 

What's your point? This didn't happen, so it's irrelavent.

[herme3]

What's your point? This didn't happen, so it's irrelavent.

 

As far as I know, there was no religion that claimed giant space aliens live on the moon. To use as an example, let's just pretend that it existed, and pretend that it was widely accepted and believed. In that case, science would be able to prove that the religion was not true after it could prove no giant aliens live on the moon.

 

Perhaps we can rule out some of the modern religions by using the same technique. Although it may not be as obvious as giant space aliens on the moon, there could be parts of modern religions that science can prove is not true. Since most religions say that 100% of their religious text is true, proving that one part of the religion is false can prove that the entire religion is false.

[ecoli]

Perhaps we can rule out some of the modern religions by using the same technique. Although it may not be as obvious as giant space aliens on the moon, there could be parts of modern religions that science can prove is not true. Since most religions say that 100% of their religious text is true, proving that one part of the religion is false can prove that the entire religion is false.

 

This isn't true anymore. Many religions are now taking their holy texts in a more metaphorical manner.

 

I know Judaism doesn't follow 100% of it's text, rejecting peices of it when it doesn't apply to the times.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

How could space itself expand? Isn't space just the absence of matter, like darkness is the absence of light? The only way I can picture space being compressed is if matter itself was smaller, or if the matter was closer together. If the matter was closer together, wouldn't you still have the problem with an extremely large amount of gravity?

Space is not the absence of matter. Perhaps I should have said space-time. In essence, the entire universe expanded. The matter in it was not moving, but the distance between particles increased. It's hard to understand, but it can happen.

 

 

What should I be looking for in the telescope? Everything in that chart either took place on Earth, or in the solar system. How could we see back in history if the events happened so close to Earth?

The big bang happened everywhere in the universe. Remember, the universe was infinitely compressed at that point in time, and so the entire universe expanded with a burst of energy at every point at once. We can look with a telescope at any place and see the cosmic background radiation left behind from the rapid expansion, because it was emitted everywhere.

[Red_Ninja]

We're leaving religion out of it, and only correcting misinformation by showing what is generally accepted in the scientific community. Are you in?

 

Hi. Was away a few days.

 

It's all very well to leave religion out of it, but inevitably the arguments against evolution have an instrinic bias. These arguments tend to portray a 'debate' that is essentially non-existent in the scientific community. Therefore you have a situation where laypeople argue with scientists or scientifically-minded people. The debate will go in circles, and the goalposts will be continually changed. And the reason behind this is inevitably attuned to the tastes of those who believe in the book of genesis as a solid, literal account of creation.

 

I believe you generally won't find people who argue against evolution as a theory. They'll argue with a stawman comprising evolution and big bang theory as well as many others, all of which contradict the bible in literal terms.

 

I'm not trying to piss on the bonfire, it's just I've read similar threads and they tend to assume an 'orbit'

[herme3]

I had a conversation with my preacher about Genesis. My preacher told me that because of the scientific evidence, we probably shouldn't take Genesis literally. He said that the main point of Genesis was to say that God created everything, and it isn't to teach how and when he created everything. He said that the original Hebrew version of Genesis is actually a poem, and it wasn't written to be a scientific explanation of what happened.

[sunspot]

The bible was written so long ago that its message of creation was appropriate to the minds of an ancient person. It is sort of like looking at the universe as seen by Copernicus, and then judging modern science by this precusor theory, since the data shows this science foundation uses erroneous assumptions. Or one can realize stepping stones are a sequence of steps leading to future understanding. Each stepping stone was the state of the art in its day, leading to gradual improvements and new stepping stones for futher progress.

[bombus]

I had a conversation with my preacher about Genesis. My preacher told me that because of the scientific evidence, we probably shouldn't take Genesis literally. He said that the main point of Genesis was to say that God created everything, and it isn't to teach how and when he created everything. He said that the original Hebrew version of Genesis is actually a poem, and it wasn't written to be a scientific explanation of what happened.

 

 

Yes, but Genesis was regarded as fact until science came up with a more believable explanation. Look, the truth is that regardless of whether there is a God, and regardless whether he created everything in 7 days, and regardless of whether everything was created 4039 years ago (or whatever Christain nutters say), EVOLUTION IS A FACT!

 

With our understanding of genetics it is actually IMPOSSIBLE for evolution via natural selection to NOT occur. The thing is, once you accept that (and you should) there is no longer a need for the intervention of a God. So if one applies Occams razor, God should not really be included in a theory of evolution as he/she is surplus to requirements.

[JustStuit]

Yes' date=' but Genesis was regarded as fact until science came up with a more believable explanation. Look, the truth is that regardless of whether there is a God, and regardless whether he created everything in 7 days, and regardless of whether everything was created 4039 years ago (or whatever Christain nutters say), [b']EVOLUTION IS A FACT![/b]

 

With our understanding of genetics it is actually IMPOSSIBLE for evolution via natural selection to NOT occur. The thing is, once you accept that (and you should) there is no longer a need for the intervention of a God. So if one applies Occams razor, God should not really be included in a theory of evolution as he/she is surplus to requirements.

Be careful what you say, evolution is a widely accepted theory. I think it is true as do many people but we still call it a theory. You might want to look up the definition for scientific theory, fact, law, etc. if you are still confused.

[insane_alien]

well it is a fact as it has been observed. just like gravity is a fact. the theory explains the mechanisms of the fact.

[JustStuit]

A scientifc theory is a model or explanation of observations that explains how and why something happens. A law notes something happens and a theory explains why. Theories are more complex and account for something. Evolution explains why and is widely accepted so it's a theory.

[Edtharan]

well it is a fact as it has been observed. just like gravity is a fact. the theory explains the mechanisms of the fact.

Actually there are two parts to this. We can and have observed mutation, natural selection and other processes. The attempt to explain these observations and make predictions that can be tested is called the Theory of Evolution. Do not confuse the observed facts with the attempt to explain what is happeneing.

 

The facts are that we can observe the slow changes that occures in a spiecies and even (given enough time) a spiecies gradual change (behavioural or physiological changes) that stops it from reproducing with others of a similar and once identical kind (this is called speciation).

 

We group all these observations toghter and attempt to make predictions about what would happen in different circumstances (eg: what if a large animal was placed on an island and allowed to breed for many many many generations or what would happen if you slowly destroyed an organisms habitat). This is the theory of evolution.

 

The theory is not 100% correct, but it is the best we have at giving us predictions and answers to the "What if?" questions. The bible gives us no answers to these "What if?" questions.

[bjaminwood]

I am a Christian' date=' but I also believe in proven scientific evidence. I have nothing against scientific research into Christian beliefs. If my beliefs are true, science will never be able to prove they are false. If my beliefs are false, I would like to know it and see the proof. I have yet to find scientific evidence against the existence of God. However, if such evidence does happen to exist, why would Christians be against it? Why would anyone want to practice a religion that is known to be false? It would make no sense.

 

It would be like someone telling me that there is an explosive device in my house. Yes, I'm going to get out of my house as quickly as I can. However, I will also want the police or some other experts to come and investigate. If they can prove to me that there is no explosive device, I would go back inside. Why would I waste me time standing outside for no reason? I think the same is true for religion.

 

If I used the example above, some scientists would be like the police if they never went inside to investigate, but they just came and said, "It could just be a prank. You can go back inside." Just because science can provide an alternative theory to creationism doesn't mean that creationism is false. I have been taught the Christian religion, and I will continue to practice it unless scientific proof shows that I am wasting my time. I don't want to die and wake up to see the Devil, and then hear Charles Darwin say, "Oops. Sorry everyone."[/quote']

 

A very good point well made