|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Why I Don’t Believe the Theory of Evolution 2
« Back to club forum
| ||||||||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 VicThe answer I think is the entire lineage of humanoids that have come before us that have gradually increased in brain size and intelligence. People (of today) did not simply spontaneously combust into existence and start creating airplanes, symphonies, paintings etc. The evolved and learning evolved, little by little. Growth in learning and understanding spurred brain development which allowed more learning and understanding. That spurred more brain development etc. etc. The real questions are: Where, when, and how did life start? Is life only here on Earth or is it possible throughout this universe? Was physics set up such that life can begin automatically? Where, when, and how did humans get a soul? What happens to the soul after death? |
|||||||||||||||
|
Sure, but why did animals remain stuck in a rut? <<Growth in learning and understanding spurred brain development which allowed more learning and understanding. That spurred more brain development etc. etc.>> Agree, but why is this confined to humans? <<The real questions are: Where, when, and how did life start? Is life only here on Earth or is it possible throughout this universe? Was physics set up such that life can begin automatically? Where, when, and how did humans get a soul? What happens to the soul after death?>> I think answers to most of those questions are in the Bible. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Vic |
|||||||||||||||
|
I already know and believe the answers in the Bible. |
|||||||||||||||
|
"humanoids and Missing links" Not sure laboratory assisted species count, do they? |
|||||||||||||||
|
Vic I have NO idea why things are the way they are. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Here’s how I think the Bible addresses the questions you asked… <<Where, when, and how did life start?>> Where: Garden of Eden, which some think was in present-day Iraq based on the location and names of two of four rivers in Genesis. Others think the location of the Garden of Eden can’t be determined due to the Flood. When: Also unknown. The Bible doesn’t give an age for the earth. Young Earth Creationists who say it’s 6000 years old are basing that off genealogies. Also, imo, time is created and able to be manipulated so I think any question about when something happened at the time of earth’s creation and abiogenesis has to be viewed in that context. How: Life was created by God. <<Is life only here on Earth or is it possible throughout this universe?>> I don’t think the Bible says one way or the other. I personally think intelligent life is only on earth, though I guess some would say intelligent life doesn’t even exist on earth lol. I think people who believe life exists elsewhere are basing that off probability (vast number of stars and a guesstimate on the average number of planets revolving around them) and not actual evidence. <<Was physics set up such that life can begin automatically?>> I think the laws of physics didn’t always exist but at one time were created. Scientists haven’t been able to create life nor do I think they ever will. The laws of physics support life but I don’t think they had any part in creating it. <<Where, when, and how did humans get a soul?>> I think humans received a soul from God at the time the first humans were created. “And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” (Genesis 2:7) <<What happens to the soul after death?>> I believe all souls go to God after someone’s physical body dies. Where souls go after that, I think, depends on whether the person was saved (had his or her sins forgiven through believing in Jesus Christ a la John 3:16, Romans 10:9, John 11:25, John 6:40, Acts 16:30-31 and John 8:24.) I’ve always believed God exists (though I wasn’t always a Christian,) but I’ve heard that agnostics who sincerely asked God to show them if He exists got an answer. As far as the vast gulf between the capabilities and accomplishments of humans and animals, I think that’s due to humans being created in the image of God, which was not the case with animals. “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:26-27) |
|||||||||||||||
|
youtu.be Video is 11:07 |
|||||||||||||||
|
Insert#1 from LS ...................................................... Softaire Walks on Water <<There are several moons around Jupiter, Saturn, and even Neptune that are though to have oceans below their surface ice, If true, scientists think there may be life in the oceans at thermal vents just as has occurred here on Earth. >> It is awesome Softaire is aware of this science. I have always had deep respect for his natural understanding. This was in response to Thumper’s question of where the water came from. It is a fair question. It starts with hydrogen, the most common element in the universe. Four hundred thousand years after the Big Bang, an epoch known as the dark age, matter as we know it did not exist. Ultimately space cooled to the hyperfine transition state where electrons could flip orientation to match their proton partners. So that is the hydrogen. Virtually all of it. H2O is two primordial hydrogens connected to an oxygen. Where does the oxygen come from? Nuclear fusion within big stellar cores. A helium nucleus fuses with a carbon nucleus to make oxygen. Later the star explodes, spewing oxygen into the interstellar medium. This combines with hydrogen to make water. Aside from diatomic oxygen (oxygen readily bonds with itself) and possibly carbon monoxide, water is the most common molecule in the universe. The Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud contain lots of carbon dioxide and water—big icy chunks of it. We see these as short and long period comets. When they intersect Earth’s path—water. We see ancient craters testifying to cometary impacts. I had my students work out the frequency and number required to provide all Earth’s oceans within its first half billion years. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Insert #2 from LS <<Evolutionists claim that the earth created its own water from its chemical composition once the 'molten ball' cooled. The rest being delivered to earth through millions of 1 cubic mile sized ice asteroids impacting the earth. In Earth’s early days they say was a magma ocean, a sphere of molten rock and nothing else for a couple billion years... suddenly we have hundreds of millions of cubic miles of water in just a hundred million years or so. Grasping at manufactured straws desperately trying to explain away a major embarrassment to their 'theory'.>> Not quite. What is the typical size of a comet? Halley’s is on the order of 5x5x10, or 250 cubic miles. Bernardinelli-Bernstein diameter is roughly 80 miles. Radius 40 miles, volume roughly 270,000 cubic miles. Only 40% of that is water, or 100,000 cubic miles. 320 million cubic miles of Earth oceans, probably half or more of which formed from original Earth matter. I make the entire ocean volume from 3200 impactors of this size. That averages out to one impactor every 150,000 years during Earth’s first half billion years of existence. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Is no one reading whatever club that appeared in? Why doesn’t he just join this club? |
|||||||||||||||
|
Is he all worked up by the videos debunking whale evolution? 😂 |
|||||||||||||||
|
Here’s the other one: youtu.be Video is 5:07 P.S. Please tell me you’re not going to post his unhinged rants about Trump or his vivid descriptions of Trump having sex. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Vic |
|||||||||||||||
|
Yes, but the one-time basis was followed by a second insert. If he wants to post in this club, he oughta join it. Or is everyone here too icky for him? And you’re assuming his posts are factual, which is never a good idea. IMO. |
|||||||||||||||
|
<<The Origin of Man and the "Waiting Time" Problem - John Sanford - August 10, 2016 Excerpt: My colleagues and I recently published a paper in Theoretical Biology and Medical Modeling, "The Waiting Time Problem in a Model Hominin Population." It is one of the journal's "highly accessed" articles. A pre-human hominin population of roughly 10,000 individuals is thought to have evolved into modern man, during a period of less than six million years. This would have required the establishment of a great deal of new biological information. That means, minimally, millions of specific beneficial mutations, and a large number of specific beneficial sets of mutations, selectively fixed in this very short period of time. We show that there is simply not enough time for this type of evolution to have occurred in the population from which we supposedly arose. Historically, Darwin-defenders have argued that time is on their side. They have claimed that given enough time, any evolutionary scenario is feasible. They have consistently argued that given millions of years, very large amounts of new biologically meaningful information can arise by the Darwinian process of mutation/selection. However, careful analysis of what is required to establish even a single genetic "word" (a short functional string of genetic letters) within a hominin genome shows just the opposite. Even given tens of millions of years, there is not enough time to generate the genetic equivalent of the simplest "word" (two or more nucleotides). Even in a hundred billion years, much longer than the age of the universe, there is not enough time to establish the genetic equivalent of a very simple "sentence" (ten or more nucleotides). This problem is so fundamental that it justifies a complete re-assessment of the basic Darwinian mechanism.>> youtu.be (Appears in the video description) |
|||||||||||||||
|
<<The waiting time problem in a model hominin population Abstract Background Functional information is normally communicated using specific, context-dependent strings of symbolic characters. This is true within the human realm (texts and computer programs), and also within the biological realm (nucleic acids and proteins). In biology, strings of nucleotides encode much of the information within living cells. How do such information-bearing nucleotide strings arise and become established? Methods This paper uses comprehensive numerical simulation to understand what types of nucleotide strings can realistically be established via the mutation/selection process, given a reasonable timeframe. The program Mendel’s Accountant realistically simulates the mutation/selection process, and was modified so that a starting string of nucleotides could be specified, and a corresponding target string of nucleotides could be specified. We simulated a classic pre-human hominin population of at least 10,000 individuals, with a generation time of 20 years, and with very strong selection (50 % selective elimination). Random point mutations were generated within the starting string. Whenever an instance of the target string arose, all individuals carrying the target string were assigned a specified reproductive advantage. When natural selection had successfully amplified an instance of the target string to the point of fixation, the experiment was halted, and the waiting time statistics were tabulated. Using this methodology we tested the effect of mutation rate, string length, fitness benefit, and population size on waiting time to fixation. Results Biologically realistic numerical simulations revealed that a population of this type required inordinately long waiting times to establish even the shortest nucleotide strings. To establish a string of two nucleotides required on average 84 million years. To establish a string of five nucleotides required on average 2 billion years. We found that waiting times were reduced by higher mutation rates, stronger fitness benefits, and larger population sizes. However, even using the most generous feasible parameters settings, the waiting time required to establish any specific nucleotide string within this type of population was consistently prohibitive. Conclusion We show that the waiting time problem is a significant constraint on the macroevolution of the classic hominin population. Routine establishment of specific beneficial strings of two or more nucleotides becomes very problematic. tbiomed.biomedcentral.com |
|||||||||||||||
|
Softie |
|||||||||||||||
|
Victor www.youtube.com 12 minutes |
|||||||||||||||
|
@Thumper Looking forward to watching it a little later. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Thumper |
|||||||||||||||
|
youtu.be Quote from the video: “When presented with evidence that conflicts with Neo-Darwinism, most scientists cling to a belief in the blind process of evolution, denying what science has discovered - that at the foundation of life, there exists a code so complex and advanced that it defies chance.” I’m sure this is yet another problem with Darwin’s wild guess that evolutionists on here will ignore. Why? Because they have to. |
|||||||||||||||
|
youtu.be Quote from the video: “We know we have conscious minds. We know our own consciousness better than anything else. In fact, all of our knowledge of the world around us is mediated to us through our senses and comes to us in our minds. So if the mind isn’t a real entity, then we don’t have any knowledge, let alone scientific knowledge. So mind is presupposed in all scientific inquiry. And getting rid of the mind as an explanatory entity is contrary to everything we know. We know from direct introspective activity better than we know anything else that we have minds, and we also know from our introspective activity the causal powers that our minds have, what our minds can do. And one of the things we know our minds can do is generate information.” Of course, evolutionists on here will say that Intelligent Design is just a way to “get God in through the back door” - proving that the theory of evolution, to them, is really a justification for their atheism and anything that challenges Darwin’s wild guess is a threat to their atheistic dogma. |
|||||||||||||||
|
This video mostly talks about why the fossil record does not support the theory of evolution, though it briefly covers the “waiting time problem” as well. youtu.be BTW, more and more scientists are realizing Darwin’s theory is simply not credible, but they’re sadly thinking they’ll find the solution to the origin of species through purely naturalistic means. It’s like leaving one dead-end street and driving down another, thinking you’re going to find a highway. |
|||||||||||||||
|
<<Is our universe just an accident? Or does it display exquisite evidence of fine-tuning and intelligent design? This episode of Science Uprising investigates claims by scientific atheists like Lawrence Krauss and Bill Nye that our universe is nothing special and that the fine-tuning scientists observe can be explained away by the existence of multiple universes. In his latest book, Stephen Meyer demonstrates how discoveries in cosmology and physics coupled with those in biology help to establish the identity of the designing intelligence behind life and the universe. Be sure to visit scienceuprising.com to find more videos and explore related articles and books. Featured experts include Bijan Nemati, Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama, Huntsville, and former long-time researcher at NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab; Frank Tipler, Professor of Mathematical Physics, Tulane University, and co-author of The Anthropic Cosmological Principle; and Stephen Meyer, PhD, Director, Center for Science and Culture, Discovery Institute and author, The Return of the God Hypothesis.>> youtu.be Video is 8:17 |
|||||||||||||||
|
We hope it happened, it might have happened, it could have happened, it probably happened, we think it happened, we believe it happened, it did happen. |
|||||||||||||||
|
The evolutionists I know have definitely reached the level of fanaticism, attacking anyone who criticizes or questions the theory and saying criticizing the theory should be a crime 😳 |
|||||||||||||||
|
<<This is a very interesting computer simulation of the process of evolution. Briefly, it comes to the conclusion that the 'waiting times' for successful mutations to occur are far too long to fit Darwinian evolution theory. I have some fundamental objections to this study (the assumpions behind the computer simulation algorithm), but I need to work a bit more on that and I will return on it later.>> m.gameknot.com What are your fundamental objections to that study? Have you had a chance to work a bit more on it? |
|||||||||||||||
|
How much of science today is nothing but “junk science” to deny the existence of God? youtu.be Video is 11:05 IMO, many scientists put their atheism above and ahead of science. It’s why even though minds obviously exist, scientists refuse to consider an intelligent and creative mind exists apart from human beings. Or, as Stephen Meyer much more eloquently put it in a video posted in this thread on May 9 at 17:19: “We know we have conscious minds. We know our own consciousness better than anything else. In fact, all of our knowledge of the world around us is mediated to us through our senses and comes to us in our minds. So if the mind isn’t a real entity, then we don’t have any knowledge, let alone scientific knowledge. So mind is presupposed in all scientific inquiry. And getting rid of the mind as an explanatory entity is contrary to everything we know. We know from direct introspective activity better than we know anything else that we have minds, and we also know from our introspective activity the causal powers that our minds have, what our minds can do. And one of the things we know our minds can do is generate information.” |
|||||||||||||||
|
youtu.be Video is 54:28 Don’t let the length of the video put you off - it has a lot of great insights into some of the flaws with the theory of evolution. From the video description: <<Evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg challenges what he calls the "National Geographic" or "textbook" view of the fossil record as a support for modern Darwinian theory. In this bonus interview released as part of the Science Uprising series, Sternberg unpacks what the fossil record really shows, what we learn from population genetics about Darwinian theory, and how the Darwinian mechanism can't account for the evolution of whales. He also examines competing scientific explanations for the abrupt appearance of new body plans in the history of life. Richard Sternberg is an evolutionary biologist with interests in the relation between genes and morphological homologies, and the nature of genomic “information.” He holds two Ph.D.'s: one in Biology (Molecular Evolution) from Florida International University and another in Systems Science (Theoretical Biology) from Binghamton University. From 2001-2007, he served as a staff scientist at the National Center for Biotechnology Information, and from 2001-2007 was a Research Associate at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History. Dr. Sternberg is presently a research scientist at Discovery Institute.>> |
|||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
